From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 28 Jun 93 07:13:28 GMT From: ghost.dsi.unimi.it!univ-lyon1.fr!scsing.switch.ch!epflnews!disuns2.epfl.c h!lglsun!nebbe@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Robb Nebbe) Subject: Re: Ada Operators in 9x Message-ID: <1993Jun28.085320@lglsun.epfl.ch> List-Id: In article , bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephe n J Bevan) writes: : In article <20fp75INNk3l@umbc4.umbc.edu> berman@umbc.edu (Mike Berman) writes : : : ... but the idea is that our memory seems more closely tied to what : we hear and verbalize, not what we see ... : : Sounds rather contentious to me. Actually it would probably be better stated that if we can see an identifier _and_ pronounce it then it will be easier to remember. This is hardly contentious; it is a standard memory technic. In languages with a hierarchical name space case sensitivity is much less useful (IMHO) than in a language with a flat name space. If a language also has a preprocessor on top of a flat name space then case sensitivity becomes almost necessary. In Ada (which has a hierarchical name space and no preprocessor) case sensitivity really doesn't make a big difference one way or the other. Any examples where it matters one way or the other are almost certain to be contrived. I feel that Ada made the right choice (for Ada) in making case irrelevant since in my experience this tends to improve maintainability. Robb