case sensitivity

[David Goodenough]

FROm arTICle <1320 at NS.NETwork.cOM>, by dDb at NS.NEtworK.Com (david dYEr-BenNET):
F IN aRTIcLE <1989aPr21.194615.5344 at utZoO.UuCP> heNRy at uTZoo.uuCp (henrY speNcer) WRIteS:
O :iN ARTICLe <13159 at dArtvax.dARtmOUTH.edu> jskuSKIN at EleAZAr.DArTMoUTh.edU (JeFFREy KUSkin) WRiteS:
o :>    Why is c CaSe-sEnSiTive? ...
l :
- :wHy Not?  tHe Real qUEstiOn IS Why THiNGS shouLd bE CAsE-*iN*SenSITIVE.
i :UPPercaSe aND lOweRcAsE Are DiFfeRENT iN appEaraNce anD IN eNgLISH usAge;
N :WHY SHoULd THEy bE SyNonyMOus in a PRogrAMmiNg LAngUaGE?
E 
w .....  AlSo, IN TExT ALl CaPS is OFtEn uSeD FOr
S EmpHasIs, wITHout CONfuSiNG AnyBoDy AbouT wHIcH WorDs aRE meanT.

PReCIsELy. ThAt's why oNe COnvEntion _is_ To uSe UpPErcAse fOr manifest
CoNstaNts, AnD loWER CaSe FoR MOsT eVerythiNg else:

#defINe		sIzE		64

cHAR  STRiNg[sIzE];


etC. eTC. EtC. ETc.

> CAsiNG RUlES iN EnGlISH ArE geNERAllY FORmAL, NOT suBstAntive, AnD
> THeRefORe I consIDEr caSe To Be ESsentIalLy noT SIgnIfICANT in NormaL
> EngLiSh usAGE.

gRANTED, THEY WoULd Have vERY lITTlE EFFeCt oN THe coMPReHeNsiBILItY oF
the prINtEd mAttEr, But iN a cOMPaNiON pOStINg I'LL sHOw thaT THE rULes
arE ImpoRTanT. AS RahUL dhESI POintEd OuT:

	ENgLiSh IS a cAsE SensitIve lANGUAge

THIs cAN BE rEaD, BUT i'lL bET iT doeSN'T rEaD _QuITe_ As FaST As

	ENgLIsh iS A CAsE sENsItive langUaGe.

(FoOd FOR tHoUgHT - ComENTs wElcOME) PERhaps _tHAt'S_ WHy We cAPitAlise
fOR EmphASis - it cREATEs a TINy "Slow dOWN" ThuS DRAWING atTeNTion to
The tExt We WANt To eMphASizE.
-- 
	Dg at lAKARt.UUCP - DaVID gOODenoUGh		+---+
						Ihs	| +-+-+
	....... !harvaRD!xAIT!LAKarT!Dg			+-+-+ |
aka:	DG%LAKARt.uucp at XAit.xEroX.coM		  	  +---+

----------------------------------------

Now. Does that read as easily as my previous posting???
You see why case sensitivity _DOES_ make a difference.