From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a52c822fc0dbb23
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers
Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:28:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1177010938.200523.325290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
References: <1176998738.656903.141250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
   <wccodlkz0ej.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.225.225.44
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1177010938 6724 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2007 19:28:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:28:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wccodlkz0ej.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
 .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.225.225.44;
   posting-account=JVr7Xg0AAAAI3MbuARxMmvWLmA7qdJMx
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15125
Date: 2007-04-19T12:28:58-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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