Re: Prefixed notation for non tagged types

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 10:18:33 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> "Jere" wrote in message 
>> > On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 8:04:56 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> >> (3) Since prefixed notation does automatic dereferencing and referencing
>> >> (that is, .all and 'Access), allowing it on all types caused levels of
>> >> ambiguity (and potentially infinite regress). It was easier to just 
>> >> define
>> >> it on tagged types, which didn't have those issues. Perhaps it could have
>> >> been made to work, but it was more work for a feature that already had
>> >> significant opposition; probably it would have been dropped rather than
>> >> getting more complicated. (Sound like a broken record??)
>> >
>> > Was there any consideration to having prefixed notation to
>> > apply to all record types and add a way to denote that a private
>> > type is a record type (there should be many ways to do that)?
>> > We don't really need it on all types, just record types.
>> 
>> Not that I recall, but requiring an indication that a private type is 
>> completed by a record seems like noise (99% of private types are completed 
>> by some sort of record as it is). It would be better the other way around 
>> (indicate when it is *not* completed by a record), but of course that would 
>> be incompatible. Still seems best for Ada'Succ.
>> 
>>                                           Randy.
>
> I know this is an old email chain, but I've been thinking about this
> more recently.  For background, I asked if there could be a way to
> denote that a private type was a record type, so that Prefixed notation
> could be used on non tagged types.  Randy noted that since most private 
> types were record types, it would just be noise.  I wanted to revisit
> this thought.  Forgive me if there is a good way to split the chain.
> I don't know how to do that.  

I don't understand why prefixed notation should be limited to private
types that are completed by records?

Naturally, I wasn't involved in any ARG discussions about this (not
being a member!), but I'd have thought the ideal would be for any
derived type (which includes private types, I think?) to be a candidate.