comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Three simple questions
Date: 2000/10/16
Date: 2000-10-16T00:00:00+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccbswk94ab.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8s8jmo$qt0$1@nnrp1.deja.com

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> In article <LVzA9mCZWcOB@eisner.decus.org>,
>   Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:
> 
> > If you cannot get programmers to agree on style, you have a
> > people problem that cannot be solved with technology.  If
> > somebody writes Runtime_Exception and someone else writes
> > runtime_exception it is not the end of the world.
> 
> No, but it is a bug in my view. And tools can help.

I agree.  If I define a language, it will be illegal.

Of the two, case INsensitivity is better than case sensitivity, because
the latter is more error prone.  However, a rule that is better than
both would be:  Overload resolution is case INsenstive.  There is a
post-name-resolution legality rule that says you have to spell each use
with the same casing as the declaration.  I believe that's essentially
what you get if you use GNAT in the mode where it complains about
casing.

> What to me is clear is that it is not a good idea to allow
> two different identifiers that differ only in casing to
> be simultaneously visible.

Well, I don't think that's *quite* right.  After all, Ada allows two
different identifiers to be simultaneously visible even when they are
identical -- they don't *even* have to differ in casing.  What I would
say is that it's a bad idea for the casing of a usage control name
resolution.

If "foo" were both an acronym and a word, it would be reasonable to have
a procedure Foo and a procedure FOO both visible.  But I wouldn't want
overload resolution to treat them differently.  (I can't think of any
such words in English right now, but there must be some.)

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a language where I could say:

    function Capitalize(string: String) return String;

where it's clear from the context of use whether we're talking about the
parameter or the type.  It's not distinguished by case; case would be
merely an extra cue.  Of course, in Ada, neither parameter names nor
type names are overloadable.

One thing I find strange is that Ada zealots who very much agree that
case sensitivity is a bad idea in programming languages are willing to
hand out long tiresome lectures on the spelling of Ada (vs ADA).  ;-)
I worry that it turns off newcomers, especially in the rare cases where
the lecture is rude (eg, "How DARE you criticize Ada when you don't even
know how to spell it, you nitwit?!").

- Bob




  parent reply	other threads:[~2000-10-16  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 101+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2000-10-09  0:00 Three simple questions Frank Christiny
2000-10-09  0:00 ` John McCabe
2000-10-09  0:00   ` Frank Christiny
2000-10-10  0:00     ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-10-10  0:00       ` Case for case-sensitivity (Was: Three simple questions) Frank Christiny
2000-10-10  0:00         ` David Starner
2000-10-12  0:00           ` John English
2000-10-10  0:00         ` Ted Dennison
2000-10-10  0:00         ` mjsilva
2000-10-10  0:00           ` John Magness
2000-10-10  0:00         ` tmoran
2000-10-10  0:00         ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2000-10-11  0:00         ` dmitry6243
2000-10-11  0:00         ` John English
2000-10-11  0:00           ` Frank Christiny
2000-10-12  0:00             ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-10-14  0:00             ` nickerson
2000-10-15  1:48               ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-15  0:00                 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2000-10-11  4:39         ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-10  0:00     ` Three simple questions John English
2000-10-10  0:00       ` Dale Stanbrough
2000-10-10  0:00         ` John English
2000-10-10  0:00           ` Ted Dennison
2000-10-11  0:00             ` Tucker Taft
2000-10-11  0:00               ` Ted Dennison
2000-10-12  0:00                 ` Tucker Taft
2000-10-12  0:00                   ` The AI process (was: Three simple questions) Ted Dennison
2000-10-12  0:00                     ` Marc A. Criley
2000-10-12  0:00                       ` Tucker Taft
2000-10-16  0:00                   ` Three simple questions Robert A Duff
2000-10-10  0:00         ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-10-11  0:11       ` wv12
2000-10-10  0:00         ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-10-14  3:25           ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-15  0:00             ` The Ludwig Family
2000-10-16  0:00               ` Florian Weimer
2000-10-17  0:00                 ` David Starner
2000-10-18  0:00                   ` Florian Weimer
2000-10-19  0:00                     ` David Starner
2000-10-21  0:00                       ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-21  0:00                         ` David Starner
2000-10-23  0:00                           ` Robert A Duff
2000-10-28 11:00                             ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-28 10:56                           ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-28 10:57                           ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-21  0:00                     ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-21  0:00                       ` David Starner
2000-10-16  3:10               ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-17  0:00                 ` The Ludwig Family
2000-10-16  0:00             ` James Hassett
2000-10-16  0:00               ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-16  0:00               ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-16  0:00             ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2000-10-11  0:00         ` David Gillon
2000-10-11  0:00         ` John English
2000-10-11  0:00           ` Pascal Obry
2000-10-11  0:00         ` mjsilva
2000-10-11  2:12         ` DuckE
2000-10-10  0:47   ` Larry Elmore
2000-10-10  1:16     ` Ed Falis
2000-10-11  3:47       ` Jeff Carter
2000-10-13  0:00         ` Philippe Torres
2000-10-13  0:00   ` Stefan Skoglund
2000-10-10  0:00 ` Pascal Obry
2000-10-11  3:59   ` Jeff Carter
2000-10-14  0:00   ` Keith Thompson
2000-10-10  0:42 ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-11  0:00 ` Tucker Taft
2000-10-12  1:05   ` Bjarne Bäckström
2000-10-13  0:00     ` Anders Wirzenius
2000-10-13  0:00       ` Bjarne Bäckström
2000-10-16  0:00         ` Anders Wirzenius
2000-10-13  0:00       ` Wes Groleau
2000-10-14  3:28         ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-11  0:00 ` Simon Wright
2000-10-14  0:00   ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-11  0:00 ` Pat Rogers
2000-10-11  0:00 ` Marin David Condic
2000-10-13  0:00   ` Keith Thompson
2000-10-13  0:00     ` Marin David Condic
2000-10-13  0:00       ` Wes Groleau
     [not found]         ` <39EAEEEA.4F58C47C@cepsz.unizar.es>
2000-10-16  0:00           ` David Starner
2000-10-16  0:00             ` Robert A Duff
2000-10-16  0:00               ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-10-16  0:00                 ` Florian Weimer
2000-10-17  0:43                 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-17  0:00                   ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-10-17  0:00                     ` Florian Weimer
2000-11-03  7:24                   ` E. E. Cummings (was Re: Three simple questions) Robert I. Eachus
2000-10-17  0:00               ` Three simple questions Keith Thompson
2000-10-17  0:00             ` Wes Groleau
2000-10-14  0:37       ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-14  0:00   ` Richard Kenner
2000-10-14  0:00     ` Marin David Condic
2000-10-14  0:00     ` Laurent Guerby
2000-10-16  0:00       ` Robert A Duff
2000-10-16  0:00         ` Laurent Guerby
2000-10-17  0:00           ` Ronald Cole
2000-10-17  0:00         ` Wes Groleau
2000-10-11  0:00 ` Larry Hazel
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox