Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers

[Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>]

On Apr 19, 11:25 am, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
wrote:
> Anh Vo <anhvofrc...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I enjoy using the prefixed (object) notation when and where ever I
> > can. However, when it comes to Containers, I can not use this notation
> > on cursor because it is not tagged.
>
> > It seems that it is not balanced between Container types and its
> > cursors. I just want to know what rationale behind it for not making
> > cursor a tagged type.
>
> I suppose it's because there's no need for type extension or dispatching
> calls.  So why pay the overhead?

Well, I have not yet come across the situation where a Container type
needs to be extended. And yet, overhead was already paid.

> A different question might be: Why is the prefix notation not allowed
> for untagged types?  I don't know the answer to that, but it's probably
> documented in the relevant AI.

Then, it is not an extended (objectable) type. I will look for it.

> I'm not a big fan of prefix notation, by the way.

It is not uncommon that different people have different thinking. For
me prefixed notation clearly has advantages. Of course, I like to use
them to the fullest :-)

AV