Re: Caselessness...

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1423 bytes --]

In article <3BCB2FDA.8060807@look.ca>, FGD says...
>
>This is a distant followup to another thread. I don't think Ada's case 
>insensitiveness is a problem, though I wonder... Ada 95 was designed to 
>support characters from many different natural languages. Couldn't there 
>be a "loophole" here, couldn't a disgruntled C programmer define a 
>CaseSensitiveEnglish language wherein upper and lower case analogues are 
>distinguished just like 'e' and '�' are distinguished in French?

Assuming it could still compile old code, then that won't change the fact that
"begin" and "BEGIN" are both the same keyword.

This decision was made *for a reason*. Its perfectly legitimate for a beginner
to wonder why certain desicions were made with the language. However, I don't
think its at all legitimate for Ada novices to try to come in here and
repeatedly argue against every single decision the language designers made,
which is the situation this NG seems to be in now. I really gets to be
exhausting trying to explain the rationale for things over and over again to
people who come in here thinking the've single-handedly solved the languages
"problem", and aren't interested in hearing why things were put the way they
are.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.