"Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
> Really a cursor is just a fancy iterator.

I don't think so. At least not in the case of the registry.

If you put information about your application X into the registry, you just sit in a special niche of the registry tree. And thats it. No iterattion at all.

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

You can move into a key subgroup or out of one, and iterate through keys and values in a group, no?  This cursor lets you navigate through the tree, no?

"normal" bidirectional iterators can only go forward or backward, not in and out.  So I'd see a cursor as an extension of the concept of bidirectional iterator.

Sean

"Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message news:3F6C0581.DDE396AE@hls.via.at...
>
>
> "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
> > Really a cursor is just a fancy iterator.
>
> I don't think so. At least not in the case of the registry.
>
> If you put information about your application X into the registry, you just sit in a special niche of the registry tree. And thats it. No iterattion at all.
>
> -- 
> Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
> Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
> 
> You can move into a key subgroup or out of one, and iterate through keys and values in a group, no?  This cursor lets you navigate through the tree, no?
> 
> "normal" bidirectional iterators can only go forward or backward, not in and out.  So I'd see a cursor as an extension of the concept of bidirectional iterator.

You can do that, but it's not the typical way how you use the registry. When Matthew talked about a cursor, he didn't mean it that way.

When you set a cursor to a "current working directory" then not because you want to use this as an iterator.

I don't mind talking about iterators. It just didn't seem to fit in the registry discussion.

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

What, you never enumerate keys in the registry?  ;)  I'm sure they have something like that inside RegEdit, in the tree view control.

I take your point.  I think I jumped tangents off what the original point about the registry was about.  So let's end this thread and move it over to cursors.

Sean

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3F6DD2B1.6F43BA3D@chello.at...
>
>
> "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:
> >
> > You can move into a key subgroup or out of one, and iterate through keys
and
> > values in a group, no?  This cursor lets you navigate through the tree,
no?
> >
> > "normal" bidirectional iterators can only go forward or backward, not in
and
> > out.  So I'd see a cursor as an extension of the concept of
bidirectional
> > iterator.
>
> You can do that, but it's not the typical way how you use the registry. When Matthew talked about a cursor, he didn't mean it that way.
>
> When you set a cursor to a "current working directory" then not because you want to use this as an iterator.
>
> I don't mind talking about iterators. It just didn't seem to fit in the registry discussion.
>
> -- 
> Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
> Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Benji Smith" <dlanguage@xxagg.com> wrote in message news:lq8mmvsjdqcn0g7okcqjb7u77nc73jjssu@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:21:49 +0200, Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden@gmx.net> wrote:
> >The D compiler could perform the following steps:
> >
> >1. Is there a file with the module name? If so, import it and stop.
> >
> >2. If there is no file, is there a directory with the module name? If so, import all .d files in that directory. Check wether any module statements inside the files refer to the wrong module. If they do it should be an error. Stop if all files are imported successfully.
> >
> >3. If there is neither a file nor a directory with the module name then we have an error.
>
> This is EXACTLY the module importing scheme that I've wanted to see from day 1.

Unfortunately, there are some problems with this. Suppose there are two files in the abc module named foo.d and bar.d. They won't know about each other, so they cannot refer to each other. The other problem is the module constructors - if each one has a module constructor, they wind up having name clashes.

Perhaps these are resolvable, but at the moment they're a problem.