|
Posted by Tony Marston on 08/05/06 13:55
"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51r6d2dvgierrh2e4ejv6bdtpu8n33mtc0@4ax.com...
> Message-ID: <eavli6$m75$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> from Tony Marston
> contained the following:
>
>>The ability to have 3 different variables called box, Box and BOX causes
>>problems.
>
>
> You also said that anyone who programmed in this way would be an idiot.
> Well, with a case sensitive language, you can't do this. (or the code
> simply won't work).
>
> So by your own arguments, case insensitive languages allow people to be
> idiots.
>
> And you still think this is a Good Thing?
You are completely missing the point. I am not advocating *FOR* the right to
deliberately use one combination of case for a variable or function only to
use a different combination of case elsewhere in the same program. Anybody
who deliberately does such a thing deserves a good talking to. What I am
advocating *AGAINST* is the situation where a variable or function, if
defined or referenced in a different case, actually becomes a totally
different object. If I encounter readfile(), readFile(), ReadFile() and
READFILE() it causes far more problems if they are totally different
functions than it does by being the same function but with different case. I
also expect the variables box, Box and BOX to mean the *same* thing and not
*different* things.
Using a different case may offend the sensibilities of some delicate souls
out there (oh, the poor little darlings), but the consequences of having a
series of different functions or variables which have the *same spelling*
but *different case* are far more serious as they can create genuine
problems. In my many decades of experience only a complete moron cannot
handle a simple change of case, and only a complete moron thinks that having
readfile(), readFile(), ReadFile() and READFILE() as a series of *different*
functions is a Good Thing.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|