[bitc-dev] Simplified defrepr

[Swaroop Sridhar]

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>>> * Note that the numbering scheme for constructors and fields used above 
>>> is just a placeholder for simplicity of definition (that is, it must not 
>>> be understood as enforced by the language). They can be uniquely renamed 
>>> to any legal identifier.
>> * Note that the numbering scheme for constructors and fields used
>> above ...
> 
> I have no idea what this means either.
> 

I was trying to foresee (and resolve) a confusion between the convention 
I used to describe defrepr and the requirements enforced by the 
language. But I guess this lead to more confusion by itself.

All I was saying here is: The naming of Constructors as Ctr1, .. Ctrx, 
..., and fields as f11, f12 ... f21, f22 ... etc is a naming convention 
followed in my example, and not something that will be present in all 
defreprs legal in the language.

Swaroop.