PEP0238 lament AND Re: Case (In)sensitivity

[Stephen Horne]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:41:21 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com>
wrote:

>Stephen Horne wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:35:35 -0500, "Chris Gonnerman"
>> <chris.gonnerman at newcenturycomputers.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >Both of these changes fall in the same group IMHO... they
>> >break a lot of code.
>> 
>> Case insenstitivity is also a serious issue for me - it might even
>> bite me for adopting a case-based naming convention as an apparently
>> sensible way to avoid future identifier conflicts - [...]
>> 
>> Anyway, it's probably less an issue for me than division - I use
>> integer division a lot, whereas defining different identifiers with
>> only case-changes to distinguish them is a definite no-no.
>
>This last item should always be said in conjunction with an 
>"in my opinion"... We *frequently* use identifiers which differ
>only in case from their class name.  We also use identifiers 
>which are identical to other identifiers except for case, primarily
>when we have a large series of CONSTANTS defined somewhere.

Ah - I should have thought more carefully.

Well, anyway, I'm still saying the same thing. It's wrong in principle
to change fundamental syntax and semantics, but in this particular
case I'm all right jack so sod you ;-)

(some have expressed the same view for '/', of course, but *they* are
evil whereas I am not ;-)