[bitc-dev] BitC Records Figure fixed

[Swaroop Sridhar]

> 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).