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: 30 Jun 93 17:41:16 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!relay-wo!re
lay!apssgi.nswc.navy.mil!bwallet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brad Wallet)
Subject: Re: Ada Operators in 9x
Message-ID: <1993Jun30.174116.24785@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Jun30.152449.7443@nosc.mil>, sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Samps
on) writes:
|> In article <BEVAN.93Jun27092606@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk> bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Step
hen J Bevan) writes:
|> >In article <9306261803.aa04612@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kanderso@liege.ICS.UCI.ED
U (Kenneth Anderson) writes:
|> >   >Mike Feldman wrote:
|> >   >   Suppose you _meant_ to write "q := 35;" but instead hit the shift
|> >   >   key accidentally and wrote "Q := 35;"
|> >
|> >   >Then you'd be doubly dumb.  Once for declaring "q" and "Q" in the same
|> >   >block and twice for being sloppy about typing.
|> >
|> >   You can't really mean the latter.  A person is "dumb" if they make
|> >   a typing mistake?
|> >
|> >That's your inference, not my implication.  Do you think it is a good
|> >idea to define "Q" and "q" in the same block?  ...
|> 
|>      How about this scenario?  Q is declared in a package specification. 
|> The programmer declares q in a piece of code that uses that package.  (The
|> project is large enough that programmers are not expected to know all iden-
|> tifiers in all package specifications; only those that are of interest to
|> their area.  This is the strength of the hierarchical declaration struc-
|> ture.)
|> 
|>      If you dislike this example because it relies on the use clause, cast
|> it in one of the contexts where the use clause is necessary.  Another pos-
|> sibility is declaring Q as a package regional identifier and q in a sepa-
|> rately compiled subunit.
|> 
|>      If you dislike "Q" and "q", substitute any reasonable short project-
|> specific identifier.
|> 
|>                               Charlie
|> 

no, i think you all are missing point behind making Ada case sensitive.
since the original statement was that case sensitivity would allow for
more uniform coding standards enforcement by the language, i think the
implementation would be something like all reserved words must be
written in lower case and other stuff must be all caps.  that's part of
our coding standards.  this would make perfect sense.  u could go one
further and say that single, lower case letters could be used as programmer
defined operators.  remember, this thread began with a discussion of
overloaded operators.

adding case sensitivity just to added it would not make any sense, but
adding it force code uniformity would be withing the original purpose
of Ada.

brad