Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 19 Apr 2007 18:18:04 -0700, Anh Vo wrote:

> 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.

A confusion is in assumption that some arguments of an operation are more
arguments than others. Another is that primitive operations belong to the
object (instance). The third confusion raises from incompatibility of the
prefix notation with multi-methods and multiple dispatching operations.

> Other
> advantage of prefix notation is that I do not have to fully qualify
> nor apply use clause.

When there is something wrong with use-clauses *that* should be fixed.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de