Re: Public Forum Issue/Nitpick

[ajpo!harrison@sei.cmu.edu (Timothy Harrison)]

In article <815@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (David Weller) write
s:
>OK, Here's a gripe (nitpick, if you're of that opinion):
> 
> ...
>The AQ&S Guide points out...
>               that their recommendation, and the case style followed
>throughout the guide, is lower case reserved words and everything
>else in UPPER_CASE.  They quickly go on to point out that case usage
>is a matter of taste (hence it's debatability), and that individual
>organizations should set a style and follow it.  I claim that this
>is preposterous, or at the least, unfair.  
>
>In my previous organizations that used Ada (two of 'em , not counting
>my current employer), "The Management" decided that the format in the
>LRM was sufficient for a coding "standard", and thus employed the
>style ENDORSED by SPC (Note carefully the trigger word <--).  ...
>
>My point? (I bet you thought I'd never get there! ;-)  The SPC
>style PERPETUATES this cro-magnon decision making process
>(personally, I'm in favor of ad hominem arguments, won't you
>agree?).  My proposal, and I dare say I have found this to
>be a widely accepted approach, is lower case reserved words
>and mixed case identifiers.
  [...]

Any style guide must pick a style and consistently use it.  The
upper/lower case conventions of the Ada RM happened to be chosen for
AQ&S.  As stated in AQ&S (p. 5, para 2):

    "If you disagree with the specific recommendations, you may want
     to adopt your own set of conventions which still follow the
     general purpose guidelines.  Above all, be consistent across your
     entire project." 

The specific guideline in AQ&S (p. 18, section 3.1.3) is:

    "Make reserved words and other elements of the program visually
     distinct from each other."

It appears that you disagree with your management's decisions and the
decision of the AQ&S authors regarding a matter of style.  The
arguments for and against particular upper/lower case conventions have
been aired many times in this (and other newsgroups).  The issue
remains an issue with no widespread concensus.  If you want to adopt a
convention different from that recommended in AQ&S, convince your
management.  No matter what recommendation was made in AQ&S there
would be people who like it and those who don't.  Apparently, you
don't.

Let's not get into capitalization flames that go on interminably.
There are many more substantive issues that can be discussed.

-- Tim Harrison <issi!harrison@cs.utexas.edu>
-- International Software Systems Inc.
-- 9430 Research Blvd/Echeleon IV, Suite 250/Austin, TX 78759
-- Phone: (512) 338-5722  FAX: (512) 338-5757

>> Disclaimer: I was a reviewer and contributor to both versions of AQ&S.
-- 
-- Tim Harrison (harrison@software.org)
-- Software Productivity Consortium / 2214 Rock Hill Road / Herndon, VA 22070
-- Phone: (703) 742-7113 / FAX: (703) 742-7200