Re: [Ur] Ur record types as sets of fields

> On 4/11/2017, at 12:57 AM, Adam Chlipala <ad...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > >> On 11/02/2017 09:51 PM, Anthony Clayden wrote: >> I'm curious what the full signature would look like. Here's my guess: >> >> fun natJoin [ t1' :: {Type}

Re: [Ur] Ur record types as sets of fields

> On 3/11/2017, at 2:06 AM, Adam Chlipala <ad...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2017 08:26 PM, Anthony Clayden wrote: >> I'm wondering whether Ur's disjointness constraint might be used to build a >> record merge operator -- as needed for Relational Algebra

[Ur] Ur record types as sets of fields

Hi citizens of Ur, A long while back, Adam responded in a discussion about Ur's record system http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/04/how-urweb-records-work-and-what-it-might-mean-for-haskell/#comment-3705 I'm wondering whether Ur's disjointness constraint might be used to build a record merge