The problem with that whole mess is that there's not really a
formulated rationale for the change. Basically every rational argument
for one side or another has an equivalent on the other side:
Many people distinguish by case, many others don't. Many popular
computer languages are case-sensitive. Many popular computer
languages are case-insensitive. Case sensitivity seems more intuitive
for American students. Case insensitivity seems more intuitive for
German students. Yadda yadda yadda yadda. You want to argue this
technically, see how far to the right my screen will display this
thread? Be my guest.
While we're at it: Asking that Scheme symbols be changed to accomodate
XML identifiers is like asking that Scheme numbers be changed to
accomodate XML identifiers. Symbols are the wrong type. There
already is a Scheme type for arbitrary "cases-sensitive" sequences of
characters, called string. (If we accomodate XML, why don't we
accomodate ML or Haskell? Or mathematical identifiers with arbitrary
accents, superscripts and subscripts?)
And, BTW, in case you're tempted, don't get me started on the German
eszet. FIFA (the world soccer organization for you Americans on the
list) case-folded the German word for soccer, "Fu?ball," for the world
cup. Incorrect at this point, but as clear a sign of the times as
any.
Anyway, trying to get out of my rant, I see two possible clear-cut
rationales for one side or another:
- A majority of the community would like to see case sensitivity.
There's anecdotal, but no empirical evidence to that effect.
- The change breaks backwards compatibility, and would break a lot of
code. There's anecdotal, but no empirical evidence how bad that
problem is.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Wed Nov 22 2006 - 15:38:50 UTC