Subject: Re: case-sensitivity and identifiers (was Re: Wide character implementation) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:43:54 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Matthias Blume | Sorry, I was unreasonably hash on you, Kent. You are a clever little asshole, aren't you? | By the way, here is an example in a case-sensitive natural language where | the distinction between uppercase and lowercase gets *pronounced*: "mit" | vs. "MIT" in German. The first means "with" and is pronounced like | "mitt", the second is the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and is | pronounced like speakers of English would pronounce it: em-ay-tee. Geez, dude, you are _so_ full of yourself. No wonder you think this is supremely silly -- your own contributions are ludicrous and stupid. Whether the M, I, and T of the words that make up "MIT" are capitalized or not is incidental. That one chooses to uppercase initials of words is precisely what I am talking about. Sheesh, some people. | I think that there are enough examples of this around so that making a | distinction between uppercase and lowercase is warranted in the natural | language case. Hello? Of course these is a _distinction_ you incredibly retarded jerk! Have you been arguing for a _distinction_? Man, how can you survive being so goddamn _stupid_? Nobody has argued against a distinction, you insufferably arrogant moron. The point is how it should be REPRESENTED! (Incidental capitalization added purely for effect.) Is it even possible to be so unintelligent that this is not something you could have avoided by _thinking_ a little? Of course, you are in this "you guys are silly" mode, so thinking on your own is out of the question, but the whole point is that you are so unconscious and so unwilling to engage your brain to understand what somebody else argues that you effectively reduce the discussion to your pathetically ignorant level. Of _course_ there is a distinction! Geez, you are such an idiot. The question is: should that visible distinction have been coded to represent the incidental quality apart from the intrinsic quality, and the answer is so "advanced" that your puny little brain will in all likelihood not grasp its simplicity. Let me give your sevrely reduced mental capacity a simple enough example that you might actually be inspired to think about the ramifications. The symbol for Ångstrøm in Unicode is exactly the same as the glyph for the letter A with ring above, because the guy's name was spelled with that letter, just like Celsius and Fahrenheit, but all these three letters should never be lowercased even though they are upper-case letters. This is an intrinsic quality. For this reason, Unicode has chosen to represent them as _symbols_, not letters. The same applies to Greek omega, pi, rho, and sigma, which are different symbols in each case. Can you wrap your exceptionally pitiful brain around these few and simple examples to perhaps grasp that incidental qualities and intrinsic qualities are important? Or are you so unphilosophical and such a leering idiot with a moronic grin permanently attached to his skull that being able to grasp what other people have thought about before you has become impossible for you? On wonder you think those who think are _gods_ in their own mind: If you had been able to think at all, you would probably experience _several_ revelations of such magnitude that one "god" would not be enough. | Again, I do not think that this needs to be in any way correlated with | the PL case. Is the stuff you are smoking legal? Go back to your Scheme community, where being supremely silly is not considered rude to your compatriots. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.