Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 08/11/06 00:50

Tony Marston wrote:
> "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.
>

Nope, neither Shelley nor I ever stated we would do that. I'd like to
see you point to a message otherwise. But you can't - because you can't
even tell your own posts from someone else's, stoopid Tony.

YOU are the only one who has claimed this.

And no, I am NOT arguing about removing a feature. Rather, I would
rather see case sensitivity carried into function names.

>
>> 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.
>

It's you who is wrong, stoopid Tony.

>
>>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.
>

Because we follow reasonable standards. However, understanding
something as simple as case is obviously well beyond your limited
intelligence.

Keep it up, Tony. You're only showing how stoopid you really are.


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

[Back to original message]