[r6rs-discuss] Case sensitivity
shiro at lava.net
Sat Feb 21 20:14:42 EST 2009
It's interesting (no sarcasm; honestly) to observe by which point
people identify Scheme. I always felt case insensitivity in
Lisp world is a historical artifact, from the time when you
had only capital letters on computers. But I'm a late comer
so I may be wrong. (I started playing with Lisp around late-80s,
and never wrote a serious chunk of Lisp/Scheme code until mid-90s.)
But the point taken. If you identify Scheme in its case
insensitive nature, you'll feel a big discontinuity in the change.
Other critiques to R6RS may also be boiled down to the
difference of people's perception of "What makes Scheme Scheme?".
From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <gjr6765 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Case sensitivity
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:36:45 -0800
> > Since we don't need to choose one or the other now, how about
> > giving it a try?
> Giving case sensitivity a try? Sorry, but I do that all the time by
> in other languages. I don't like it there any more than I do in Scheme.
> As I said earlier, almost every project that I'm involved with starts
> by outlawing
> differences based on case even if the language allows it.
> With good reason.
> Hence, in what way is the language case sensitivity helping me?
Here you're arguing case sensitivity is no better than case
insensitivity. I'm not arguing with that. In the part I replied
to you, you told case sensitivity is worse, since you'd be confused.
That's what I argued. And you seem to know you won't be confused,
with a sane convention like you mentioned.
But if you think case insensitivity is a part of identity of
Scheme, of course you'll push case insensitivity if all other
things are equal. I understand that.
> > On the other hand, I've got some headaches working on DSL in
> > Lisp/Scheme that interacts with case-sensitive world, when
> > the implementation is case-insensitive.
> I am puzzled about that one.
> Are you trying to embed the DSLs in Scheme?
Not just 'trying'. I've been using them in production code for years.
> Don't the many other aspects of Scheme such as the
> parenthesis-based prefix syntax already cause you much
> more grief?
On the contrary, I sometimes even write C in S-expression
these days. It allows me to use macros much powerful than
the original C, which is liberating.
More information about the r6rs-discuss