I have to abandon this, it's a bit tricker than I thought.
Records are sorted for example.
Also, structs can be polymorphic: this would be tricky to represent..
basically not possible.
For example:
struct X[T] { x:T; };
Now, there is no way to have polymorphic values (only types can be polymorphic).
So actually here there's be a polymorphic type alias:
typedef X[T] = struct X { x:T; };
Anyhow the main difficulty is that tuples are everywhere and the way they're
handled is different from records. In particular records have had less work done
on them so can't do as much. Unification would have fixed that but the problem
now
is that there's a huge job to do making sure records with all blank fields act
exactly
as tuples used to. The easiest way to do that is keep the BTYP_tuple combinator
which defeats the exercise :)
I think this needs to be done, but its not a priority at the moment (I just
thought it
would be reasonably easy but it turns out to be a pain).
--
john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in
Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data
generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business
insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
