|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 05/16/06 01:20
"Andy Jeffries" <news@andyjeffries.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.15.21.05.13.959574@andyjeffries.co.uk...
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:58:50 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
>> But if a language allows the same name to mean different things if
>> specified in a different case this could lead to code which is confusing
>> and therefore difficult to maintain. It *should* be the primary objective
>> of every language to avoid such features instead of deliberately
>> implementing them. This is why the GOT verb is frowned upon and excluded
>> from many languages, and why the ALTER verb in COBOL is considered an
>> absolute no-no.
>>
>> In the English language a word has only one meaning regardless of case
>> (such as 'dog', 'Dog' and 'DOG') so why should computer languages be any
>> different?
>
> Ryan's perfectly valid point aside (different capitalisation of Dog
> meaning different things), I actually don't disagree with you entirely.
> At least not enough to argue about.
Rubbish. The letters 'd', 'o' and 'g' spell 'dog' and mean the same thing
regardless of case. take the following three sentences:-
1) beware of the dog
2) Beware Of The Dog
3) BEWARE OF THE DOG.
Do these sentences mean the same thing or not? Does the meaning change just
because the case changes?
> However, I do feel any language ought to be consistent, if the variables
> are case-sensitive the functions should be too. It makes the language a
> lot more predictable in how it will behave.
I'm afraid that the argument that all computer languages should enforce
case-sensitivity "just to be consistent" is really pathetic. A feature
should not be introduced unless it has genuine benefits, and as the
introduction of case-sensitivity does not solve a problem it is an unwanted
solution.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|