Re: The caselessness is one of the things I like best!

[John English <je@brighton.ac.uk>]

Arthur Evans Jr wrote:
> OTOH, I don't think it should be the goal of language design to
> legislate against such usage -- it can't succeed in doing so.  For
> example, nothing in Ada's specification legislates against using
> OO00OO0O00O00 and OO00O00O00O00 as identifiers, or
> lll11l1l1lll1l1ll1 and lll11l1l1l1l1l1ll1, or mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> and mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  I think use of such identifiers is
> fully as bad practice as using 'item' and 'Item'.

Yes, but as I've said many times before, having to remember whether
an identifier is spelt RuntimeException or RunTimeException, or
Hashtable vs. HashTable, or HashMap vs. Hashmap, is an unnecessary
burden on my memory. And to add insult to injury, all the Java and
C++ compilers I know will just barf if you get the case wrong rather
than giving a more helpful error message suggesting the possibly
correct spelling...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 John English              | mailto:je@brighton.ac.uk
 Senior Lecturer           | http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/je
 Dept. of Computing        | ** NON-PROFIT CD FOR CS STUDENTS **
 University of Brighton    |    -- see http://burks.bton.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------