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: 103376,808505c9db7d5613 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Looking for good Ada95 book Date: 1996/11/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194645867 references: <32723F6A.54A3@dtek.chalmers.se> <55955a$n04@felix.seas.gwu.edu> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: iRobert Duff said "I agree. It would be a Good Thing if all Ada programmers could agree on such trivial style issues as upper-case vs. lower-case reserved words. The RM recommends lower case. If I thought I could get away with it, I would have made that a *requirement* in the RM. But these issues are so emotion-laden, that I never had any serious hope of getting away with such a radical position -- I never even opened my mouth on the point. " Well clearly the compatibility requirement would have stood in the way of such requirements. However, the fact that we changed the style in the RM, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of Ada programmers are converging on one standard style (lower case keywords, and Mixed_Case_Identifiers) is definitely a Good Thing, and to be encouraged wherever possible. I certainly would like it if all Ada text books followed this model, and consider it a weakness if they do not.