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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Some questions about Ada.
Date: 1996/05/04
Message-ID: <dewar.831218670@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152973955
references: <Dqt9nA.o5n@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
 <4me37a$ipl@krusty.irvine.com> <dewar.831213757@schonberg>
 <4mfl9c$1p8@news.nyu.edu>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard Kenner said

"A counterexample to that, with which I mostly agree, are some C coding
conventions where the kind of thing is determined by the casing of the
first letter.  I've seen this sort of thing in the sources of some CAD
systems.  For example:

typedef struct wire {...} Wire;
typedef struct signal {...} Signal;

I've also seen this done with macros that call functions vs the function
they, internal and external versions of a function, etc.

I think this can be a very useful convention if it is followed
uniformly.  I can't offhand think of an Ada analog for such a
convention, though."

I know this viewpoint, but I don't agree. It is still very much subject
to the problems of talking about the program verbally. There are good
reasons why ordinary English is pretty much case insensivity (*)

(*) with of course the exception that ADA and Ada must never be confused :-)