>>>>>.... We wouldn't even have upper and lowercase letters to start with (and that might have been a good thing).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>nope
>>>>
>>>>it's superflous. a sentence starts after a punctation or on position 1. (ok. on some letterbased languages in some cases after an inital punctation)
>>>>
>>>>it's only our habit to expect it. if you would have learned reading without it, you wouldn't even notice.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cetin
>>>
>>>But we now have the habit as a whole and nothing wrong with a computer language is case-sensitive. Anyway it is an unnecessary discussion.
>>>Cetin
>>
>>No
>>
>>Language is in flow. (At least in the western world, you might have special considerations)
>>In the days of yore we wrote once only uppercase, once lowercase, later we found the habit that is common now. We have changed other parts of our written language the last decade, so there is no reason for this special problem. The "younger" of us start to communicate via cryptic SMS codes years ago. LOL is a expression that has replace other expressions of laughter even in spoken language. A company named "Malus domestica" starts now to bring acronyms like "App" into a broader audience.
>>
>>Something unbearable must be changed, and if there is no discussion there will be no change.
>>
>>Basic rule.
>>
>>This is Chatter. Chatter is by definition unnecessary so why do you complain?
>>
>>^________^
>>
>>Agnes
>
>I wasn't complaining, I was saying I find it unnecessary. What are we discussing?
>
>Are we discussing case-sensitivity in computer languages? I find this part totally unnecessary to discuss upon. Case-Sensitive languages already made it part of their language definitions. Computer languages, like it or not, have definitions that they strictly adhere to. C# have it, VFP have it, Phyton have it, VB have it .... all that I know have it. I don't know a single language that works without some definition. Even languages like Prolog have it. If you accept that they should have definitions then you are accepting case-sensitivity in some of them as their part of syntax. So what are we discussing, that is what I don't understand and if you think I am compalining, it is what I am complaining about.
>Cetin

Cetin,

those definitions are no law of nature. They are man made. On can change, and changes are done all the time. Say VFP's .CAPTION='=' behaviour for an example.

I'm not 100% sure but I think I can remember a thread where I argue the same about the way a lang defines it's math with you. It was about -2^2. For what I remember you choose the other way around to now arguing that the definition the lang is using is wrong. But I may be mistaken here.

Anyway, it's not that I do not accept a definition, but this does not mean that one can not change some ridiculous feature nobody makes use of - for obvious reasons. Or will you explain that you use this feature in the sense that you distinct names by there case? My point is that every definition may be changed. For what I know at least some C compilers offers a compiler switch to turn that rubbish of. It's only kept for some code obfuscating freaks that possibly might use it.
A pain in the neck without any use.

To the complaining (about the complaining)^n

I will not complain any more about this.

Agnes