From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05,MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 21 Nov 91 13:08:14 GMT From: ajpo!harrison@sei.cmu.edu (Timothy Harrison) Subject: Re: Public Forum Issue/Nitpick Message-ID: <816@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> List-Id: 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 -- 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