On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 23:49 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Thomas Lord scripsit: > > > Oh, THEM... well, good then. They don't come > > around here. There's nothing to worry about. > > /me raises his hand in meek defiance.
Well, I was being silly. I assume that people don't take "language faith" polarizations that seriously. To the original point (about case sensitivity)... It's not the job of a language definition to prevent the possibility of writing obfuscated code. So, "Type type = new Type", if it occurs in a context where it is genuinely obfuscatory, is no argument against case sensitivity. Linguistically and typographically - since we're in some sense given the primary task of designing typographic notations for a certain class of objects - it's a wash. People use case to signify things in real life all the time. Sometimes, to understand them, you have to understand the words in a case insensitive way - GET IT? Other times, case sensitive - as in the difference between "I'm looking for a John" and "I'm looking for a john". (Lest you think I'm making fun of your name let me just point that I've a lifetime experience with a surname that invites all manner of jokes and insults.) So it's a wash in that sense. Finally, as we know from Unicode, case folding is - when considered from a global perspective rather than just an ASCII perspective - rather hairy and we don't necessarily all agree about the best ways to do it in every situation. That's a good argument *against* making a language case insensitive. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
