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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a50a3c40267219cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 09:05:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sfo2-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: The caselessness is one of the things I like best!
Date: 15 Oct 2001 11:00:10 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <3lRKt$kFXp5K@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3105e154.0110150021.32ff5426@posting.google.com>
 <9qeg5r$266$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9qei6k$3hj$1@newstoo.ericsson.se>
 <slrn9sle58.gs.gerhard.nospam@lilith.hqd-internal>
 <b49T3qmp9rzW@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <ev_remove_this_ans-1510011113000001@192.168.1.254>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1003161612 26489 192.135.80.34 (15 Oct 2001
 16:00:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:00:12 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14542
Date: 2001-10-15T11:00:10-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <ev_remove_this_ans-1510011113000001@192.168.1.254>, ev_remove_this_ans@evans.pgh.pa.us (Arthur Evans Jr) writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
>>         Any program that has different meanings for "item" and "Item"
>> is very poorly written.
> 
> and several others made similar comments.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 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'.

But Ada does legislate against My_Name and My__Name in the same,
by prohibiting double underscores.  At some point, local standards
must take ove.r

> Case sensitivity of identifiers, like many other parts of the
> language, would be a feature that could either be used to advantage
> or be abused.

I disagree that it would be a feature.  I see absolutely no benefit.

If you want your programs to provide a standard casing for each
identifier, you can do that with a utility program, perhaps by
calling ASIS.  But when you find a deviation, fix it.  Don't
hassle the programmer about it.