Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 08/05/06 02:39

Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RIGdnWmrU-y1bEzZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>No, but programmer conventions are built around language rules, and take
>>>>advantage of those rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree. The convention of using different case to differentiate
>>>between constants, variables, functions and methods grew about because of
>>>a deficiency in the language. There was no rule in the language which
>>>made such a convention obligatory.
>>>
>>
>>
>>How do you know - by your own admission you weren't using modern languages
>>in the 1980's and early 1990's when most of these conventions were
>>standardized.
>
>
> This was a "programmer convention" not a "language rule" as stated by a
> previous poster in this thread. The language in question did not have any
> rules to differentiate between the use of constants, variables, functions
> and methods, so a group of programmers created a convention. They are now
> trying to make this "convention" into a "universal standard", which is
> totally stupid as the reason behind ths "convention" simply does not exist
> in other languages.
>

Yep, standards are good things. And universal standards make things a
lot easier.

>
>>I was - and it wasn't due to any deficiency in the language. Rather it
>>was to take advantage of features of the language.
>
>
> So you think that the ability to create three different functions called
> readfile(), readFile() and ReadFile() is a good idea?
>

When the scoping rules are defined, yes they can be.

And even beyond that - C++'s function overloading doesn't even need
different case. You can have exactly the same case for two (or twenty
or two hundred) different functions.

It can be *quite* handy.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]