> On records, what you did looks, again, very clean. The only comment I have > there is that it "feels" like something is missing in the summary section... > e.g. for some reason I would expect a "record components summary" there. I > noted that you lifted the components to the toplevel doc, but I wondering if > that's the right move. > >
There is a “record components” summary, but it is easy to miss — I missed it on first read too. It is in the top section. I think it might go better if it were right below the “public record Foo” signature, where the class doc is?
