[bitc-dev] BitC Records Figure fixed
swaroop at cs.jhu.edu
Thu Dec 23 19:42:08 EST 2004
> The definition of the type of a record in our language should be based
> on Field Types AND Field ordering AND Field names AND record-name.
It is not possible to have both of the following correctly:
i) Field ordering as a defining character of record type
ii) Record polymorphism with inferred record types
Consider the following:
function x -> x.a + x.b
The function needs as parameter, a record containing two fields a and b,
but does not care about its ordering. What is its type?
In this sense, I think it is probably NOT a good idea to mix field
positioning(tuples) and field names (records).
More information about the bitc-dev