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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,411186037d1bc912
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Some questions about Ada.
Date: 1996/05/06
Message-ID: <4mlj1d$sau@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 153321085
distribution: world
references: <DqrD2C.Jyr@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <3188F63D.3325@io.com>
 <Dqt9nA.o5n@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <4me37a$ipl@krusty.irvine.com>
 <dewar.831213757@schonberg>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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