>Well apparently that code is not about record comprehensions, but
>rather about record *generators* in list comprehensions. I argued above
>that record generators are a very bad thing if they flatten the record
>structure. I'd be very happy with a record generator that iterates over
>the pairs of Feature#Value of the record, but does not dive in values
>to flatten the structure. But apparently the flattening record
>generator was kept despite my concerns.
>
>If someone really wants a flattening record generator (and be prepared
>to have weird bugs in their program) and it's not supported by the
>language itself, it is very easy to write a function that will yield a
>stream of the flattened feature/value of a record, and use the result
>of that function as a function generator.

Understood, it's dangerous feature creep.
@francoisfonteyn do you have time to clear this up?