Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[Derek Parnell]

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? 

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
22/03/2007 11:45:23 AM