>Why not call it rec, version 1.1? ;)
That's what I would have suggested if I'd remembered that it existed.
(Thought rec was just a schema but just looked and there's a rec index set
too.) I'd forgotten about it. So, problem solved?
>I think a handfull is a huge underestimate, but sure.
There's 10 values now. Do we expect many more (or is 10 more than a