Re: Some questions about Ada.

[ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)]

In article <dewar.831213757@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: 

|> I see it! I think it is terrible Ada style to be inconsistent in casing
|> keywords or identifiers. In fact I think it is nice if the compiler has
|> an option to prevent such sloppiness (when we compile in internal GNAT
|> mode, consistent casing is enforced).

I presume you're talking about consistency among different occurrences of
the same identifier rather than mechanical adherence to a uniform set of
capitalization rules.  I also hope that you're talking only about
consistency among user-written occurrences, and not enforced conformance
to the capitalization that the compiler vendor used in the declaration of
predefined packages.

I certainly don't want to be forced to write Text_Io and Cpu_Cycles
instead of Text_IO and CPU_Cycles--or C.Interfaces.Int instead of
C.Interfaces.int!

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com