Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[David B. Held]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:33:00 -0700, Benji Smith wrote:
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:53:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's a random thought:
>>>>> What about const vs CONST?
>>>>> The upcase version obviously being the more const of the two.
>>>>> The original proposal played with punctuation, and we've talked 
>>>>> plenty about spelling, but we haven't talked about playing with 
>>>>> case.  It would be an odd-ball among keywords, admittedly, but if you 
>>>>> asked 100 people which of 'const' and 'CONST' was the most constant 
>>>>> you'd probably get 100 votes for 'CONST'.  And he could become good 
>>>>> friends with foreach_reverse, the other odd-ball keyword who is 
>>>>> disparaged by the other kids because of his obesity and the big 
>>>>> staple in his belly button.
>>>> LOL ... Now that *is* funny.
>>> Yah :o). Speaking of foreach_reverse, probably it would be wise to lobby 
>>> Walter to deprecate it in favor of foreach(reverse) (item ; collection) 
>>> { ... }. The keyword(extra) syntax is definitely becoming a D signature 
>>> syntax.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>> What do you call that little non-keyword in parens when you refer to it 
>> in your parsing code? If it's not a keyword or an operator or an 
>> identifier, how do you refer to it?
>>
>> Just curious.
> 
> An adornment/ornamentation/embellishment maybe? 

Or, to annoy people who hate Microsoft's "musical" languages, we could 
call them "grace notes".

Dave