classes from @doolse's purescript-records: #7
Conversation
| ) where | ||
|
|
||
| -- | Proof that row `r` is a subset of row `s` | ||
| class Subrow (r :: # Type) (s :: # Type) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should just use Union directly here.
| -- | Proof of row `i` being the intersection of rows `ri` and `si`, | ||
| -- | `r` is `i` subtracted from `ri` and | ||
| -- | `s` is `i` subtracted from `si` | ||
| class IntersectRow (ri :: # Type) (si :: # Type) (i :: # Type) (r :: # Type) (s :: # Type) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This really belongs in typelevel-prelude since it's not record specific.
|
Thanks! Could you please update the LICENSE file to refer to the original as well? |
|
@paf31 oh hm.. I don't think @doolse included a LICENSE in his original repo - https://github.com/doolse/purescript-records However, if there was a license to be included - should it be inserted in the top of the Class.purs source file? I'm not sure what the usual routine would be for something like that. |
|
We would usually add it to the LICENSE file in this repo (see the compiler license file as an example). This shouldn't apply for code which is PR'd by the owner of the original, though. |
|
To be clear, I'd prefer if the original repo had a LICENSE file. I'd like to discuss the content of the PR a bit as well though. It's not obvious to me that this does the right thing in the presence of duplicate labels. I wonder if something using |
This is in regards to the following two issues:
doolse/purescript-records#2 (comment)
doolse/purescript-records#1