Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!codas!pdn!alan
From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: embeddedCapitals
Message-ID: <2611@pdn.UUCP>
Date: 23 Mar 88 16:21:41 GMT
References: <2472@pdn.UUCP> <12100007@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida
Lines: 24

In article <12100007@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
> Colin Kendall notes that the Smalltalk embedded-capital "standard" is not
>super-helpful.  It has an even worse drawback.  Suppose you can't remember
>whether a variable was "Smalltalk" or "SmallTalk".  This leads you to ask
>whether it was one word or not.  But there is often no answer that is clearly
>correct.  In superDeluxeSubsystem, it is hard to say whether the next-to-last
>"s" starts a new word.  So the result is that incorrectly spelled variables
>occur, whereas without the embedded capital standard, there would not be this
>problem.

Suppose you can't remember whether a variable was "smalltalk" or
"small_talk".  This leads you to ask whether it was one word or not.
But there is often no answer that is clearly correct.  
In super_deluxe_subsystem, it is hard to say whether the next-to-last
"s" starts a new word.  So the result is that incorrectly spelled
variables occur ("super_deluxe_sub_system"), and even using embedded
capitals instead of underscores won't solve this problem!!

The problem could be solved by having the compiler ignore the
capitalization of identifiers (or ignore underscores), but that leads  
to even worse problems.

--alan@pdn