|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 08/10/06 12:35
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zoGdnTyimMPRUETZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Mark A. Boyd" <mblist@sanDotrr.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9819C73F142DCmblistssanDotrrcom@66.75.164.119...
>>
<snip>
>>
>> Do you support the idea that the ability to create different functions
>> with the *same spelling* but *different case* is a good thing? Can you
>> point to any online resources which support this idea?
>>
>
> Tony,
>
> No one in this thread has suggested doing this.
Wrong! Both you and Shelley have repeatedly stated that you would make use
of the ability to create different functions with the same spelling but
different case. If you are now saying that you would never make use of that
ability then why are we arguiing? You are now aying that you would never do
that, and all I am saying is that NO ONLY would I never do that BUT ALSO the
ability to do such a stupid thing should be removed from the language.
All you are doing is arguing about removiing a feature from the language
which you say you don't use.
> NO ONE BUT STOOPID TONY, that is.
Wrong! All I did was to say that the ability to do so was wrong and should
therefore be removed from the language. I never said it was a good idea
whose use should be encouraged. That argument came from other people.
> We use case intelligently. But that's obviously beyond your capability to
> understand.
If the language itself does not care what case is used for constants,
variables, functions and methods then why should any programmer care? Any
standards that insist on artificial constraints are bad standards,IMHO.
If a programmer has difficulty in reading code because of a slight variation
in case then he should get his eyes tested.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|