Angus Leeming wrote: > IMO, we should separate the concept of 'iterator' from that of > 'cursor'. I believe that this is AndrÃ's view too. (Witness his > occassional comments that the math cursor is a hack.) Implement the > cursor using the position iterator, by all means, but enable search > and replace to create its own position iterator as and when it needs > it.
I've managed to understand the opposite. I though that we would unify both concepts, by having Cursor behave as a simple iterator. Then S&R can create "a" cursor for its own iteration... Note also that the data structure of PosIterator and Cursor are very similar (they both keep the full path in the tree). But of course if that is not the case, I'd be happy to continue work on PosIterator. Alfredo
