Just Wondering
Badger BA 64810
bbadger at x102c.harris-atd.com
Wed Apr 26 10:35:44 AEST 1989
In article <17552 at cup.portal.com> Tim_CDC_Roberts at cup.portal.com writes:
[..]
>so let's establish a new standard right now. from this point forward,
>the only allowable usage of capital letters shall be for EMPHASIS. this
>will permit emphasis to be rendered on devices which do not support
>underlining. once underlining is universally supporte on all media and
>all devices, we can eliminate capital letters altogether, and think of
>something else to do with 26 entries in the ascii table (smiley faces?).
> :-)
>Tim_CDC_Roberts at cup.portal.com | Control Data...
>...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!tim_cdc_roberts | ...or it will control you.
In \TeX, it is considered more elegant to {\em emphasize} a concept with
a contrast between {\rm roman} and {\it italic} fonts, rather than
crudely \underline{underlining} something! (In a manuscript, underlining
is used to indicate that italics are desired.)
At the moment we are constrained by current character/terminal/printer/font
technology to define programming languages in a linear sequence of
(probably ASCII) characters. I'm not sure we're ready for the the coming
graphical/visual technology explosion.
As regards the theme, ``Why case-sensitivity?''
I _definitely_ prefer being able to use both upper and lower case,
with a predominance of lowercase.
I generally *don't* like it when an identifier is used in several different
case treatments: I read ``APart'' and ``apart'' differently, so in Ada,
would always write that as ``a_part'' and ``apart''. I wouldn't allow
mere capitalization to serve as a word marker.
Bernard A. Badger Jr. 407/984-6385 |``Use the Source, Luke!''
Secure Computer Products |``Get a LIFE!'' -- J.H. Conway
Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL 32902 |Buddy, can you paradigm?
Internet: bbadger%x102c at trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively.
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list