From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8d472879e3f609e0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-03 11:06:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool0902.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:06:55 -0400
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030529
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Case sensitivity (was Re: no title)
References: <mailman.8.1054540581.12990.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <slrnbdm1i7.1k5.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bbf9kl$7kt$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz>
 <20619edc.0306021018.6ee4dd09@posting.google.com> <c5jhbb.0sd.ln@skymaster>
 <1054649187.11497@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <d3iibb.qok.ln@skymaster>
In-Reply-To: <d3iibb.qok.ln@skymaster>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1054663616.347464@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1054663617  7429 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38530
Date: 2003-06-03T14:06:55-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> So what? The identifier is overloaded in natural
 > language, and Ada just follows the natural language.

But I thought that Ada was supposed to value safety
and readability over many other considerations.
Shouldn't that be grounds for disallowing overloads?

But in any case, since Ada already allows one word
to have many meanings, what is wrong with allowing
the case of a word to matter? After all, as long as
my argument types were sufficiently varied, I could
create a package where every single method had the
same name. Of course that would be obfuscated, and so
it's my responsibility to use better names. But Ada
permits the obfuscation. In the same way, I could
create a package where case was used confusingly,
but I could also create a package where case was
used well and meaningfully. But in this case, Ada
refuses to let me do this. Therefore, I can only
conclude that this is a prejudice of the designers
rather than a legitimate design decision.