3 ms·
Yes, but it's one extra verbose character, and it's also not a waterproof systematic. E.g., the type "THat" would clash with the variable "that". Instead I want
by jstimpfle 8y ago
Yes, but it's one extra verbose character, and it's also not a waterproof systematic. E.g., the type "THat" would clash with the variable "that". Instead I want the simple, obvious, and reliable thing: string comparison is comparison of byte arrays. No problems.
- clouddrover 8y agoCase insensitivity is simply not a practical problem. The "THat" versus "that" scenario won't compile and is trivial to address.
- jstimpfle 8y agoMy point is that the systematic is an inferior workaround to the obvious case-sensitive approach that would be simpler to implement, simpler to explain, and wouldn't have any of these problems to begin with. It's completely pointless. Maybe people who somehow don't differentiate between 'T' and 't', and are not visually remembering persons, don't have this problem. But for me, and for computers, they are different characters.