|
|
Posted by Stan McCann on 08/10/06 21:22
"Tony Marston" <tony@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:ebf967$12s$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk:
>
> "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>
> 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.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about it. As I said in my other
post, there could be perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
>> 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.
As others have said, there are time honored standards in using case
sensitivity. Any programmer that knows these standards can instantly
tell what type of variable he/she is looking at without having to go
through tons of code to find out. The same could be true with
functions based on the return value type.
> If a programmer has difficulty in reading code because of a slight
> variation in case then he should get his eyes tested.
>
There's nothing difficult about it. As I say above, there are
standards that actually help a programmer recognize the type of value.
--
Stan McCann, RETIRED!!, "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/
Implementing negative score for googlegroup postings, see
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|