Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers

[Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>]

On Apr 19, 2:43 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:45:36 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
>
> > There is an advantage: If you have type P1.T1, with operation Mumble,
> > and P2.T2 extends P1.T1, and X is of type T2, do I say "P1.Mumble(X, ...)",
> > or "P2.Mumble(X, ...)"?  It's confusing, because it depends whether Mumble
> > is class-wide or dispatching, which is a conceptually minor
> > distinction.  And it's not unusual to change from dispatching
> > to class-wide.  The notation "X.Mumble(...)" avoids that confusion.
>
> (it replaces one confusion with several others)

I do not understand what other confusions do you refer to. Other
advantage of prefix notation is that I do not have to fully qualify
nor apply use clause.

> I think prefix notation is rubbish. There should be an abstract member
> interface allowing users creation of whatever "members" they wished. So if
> anybody liked prefix notation, he could say: Mumble implements ".Mumble."
> Done. Why should the language do this by default?

This is a separate issue. I am going with the current standard. One
more thing, I usually heard the complain from the other side that Ada
is too verbose (more typing). My reply is that now Ada is shorter the
other language by two characters as shown below where X is the object
and op is the operation.

Ada                                  Other OO language
X.op;                                 X.op();

AV