Case-sensitivity: why -- or why not? (was Re: Damnation!)

[Tim Peters]

[neelk at cswcasa.com]
> ...
> there are so many more fundamental changes being discussed --
> such as true garbage collection, type/class unification, lexical
> scoping, rich comparisons, strong typing, a new iteration protocol --
> that I'm amazed and a little dismayed that something as relatively
> trivial as case-sensitivity is dominating the discussion.

It's OK to be dismayed, but not amazed:  the other things involve hard
technical tradeoffs, while anyone can weigh in on case-sensitivity with
about as much credibility as anyone else (I've kept a complete list of the
scholarly citations presented on this issue, and will embed it in the period
at the end of this sentence <wink>).

> ...
> there's a critical need to be able to iterate over trees and
< linked-lists cleanly. This is IMO more significant than GC or
> even type-class unification,

Opinions vary widely on the relative importance here, of course.  Depends on
whether the last program you wrote leaked memory, or drove you nuts trying
to iterate cleanly <0.9 wink>.

> and it's the major reason I'm rooting for Stackless, since it
> permits Sather-style coroutine-based iterators to be
> implemented in Python.

Alas, that won't sell Stackless.  My read is that Guido is secretly in favor
of a powerful iterator protocol, but semi-coroutines can be implemented via
much simpler means than Stackless -- even in ways that will work for JPython
too.  Stackless needs a killer app unique to it, or to get perceived as a
single solution to several problems as pressing as pleasant iterators.

that-rarest-of-beasts-a-case-sensitive-windows-guy-ly y'rs  - tim