flexible records

[Henry Cejtin]

Isn't  the  reason  that flexrecord2 succeeded simply that the principle type
for g is
    { foo: 'a } -> 'a
It would be pretty bad if this were rejected since clearly  if  I  explicitly
typed g it would have to be accepted.

Thus  I  claim  (but not looking at the definition) that all of your examples
should  be  accepted.   (I  can't  imagine  that  the  standard  would  allow
flexrecord2  and  yet  not  allow  both flexrecord3 and flexrecord4.)  What's
going on with MLton on this?

Unrelated to this, any conclusions on Norman's bug?  (...hackers guide...)