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

[François Pinard]

wware at world.std.com (Will Ware) writes:

> Maybe case-insensitivity should be a feature for something like IDLE rather
> than the core language.

I just want the most help I can to write consistently.  I want it so much
that I do not mind if a program does not run because of an inconsistency
error.  I prefer that it does not run, and be forced into writing correctly.

If I were using an editor that helps me, I would be happy just as well, as
a code writer.  But I would feel miserable if I had to be exposed to code,
written by others, that is ugly in that respect (the same as I'm currently
horrified by a good fraction of the HTML I look at -- and the casing in
use is just one aspect among others: the horror has to start somewhere :-).

The reason I would like sensitivity to be kept in the language definition,
rather than pushed into optional editors, is in the view of later code
exchange between people, and such exchanges are fundamental nowadays.

As for `CODE', `Code' and `code' being a constant, a class or a local
variable, say, it could be circumvented by writing `CODE_CONSTANT',
`CODE_CLASS' and mere `CODE'.  I would accept doing such things, it
Python was forcing me into them.  But then, other very serious usability
studies would surely show, without the shadow of a doubt, that children or
"everybody" prefer if the underlines are optional, and if spelling mistakes
in identifiers are automatically corrected, and if tracebacks never occur.

Guido says that Python is not a democracy, and votes do not count.  If votes
get first compiled into usability studies before being considered by Guido,
then Python is a democracy after all, and this might not be good news. :-)

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard