Your record–array correspondence reminded me of Nils Holmes's T3X language: it has "struct" defintions like this: STRUCT struct_name = field_1, ..., field_

Your record–array correspondence reminded me of Nils Holmes's T3X language: it has "struct" defintions like this: STRUCT struct_name = field_1, ..., field_N; but it's just a syntactic sugar for CONST field_1 = 0, ..., field_N = N-1, struct_name = N; just so that suitably sized vectors can be used as records: STRUCT POINT = PX, PY, PCOLOR; ! same as CONST PX = 0, PY = 1, PCOLOR = 2, POINT = 3; VAR p[POINT]; ! same as VAR p[3]; p[PCOLOR] := 42; ! same as p[2] := 42; It works reasonably well and actually allows for somewhat better meta-programming than e.g. C with its X-macros because you can literally loop over a struct's field, in a normal FOR loop.