Yet Another Case Question

[John Machin]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote in message news:<mailman.1045989065.13789.python-list at python.org>...
> "Tim Churches" <tchur at optushome.com.au> wrote previously:
> |You haven't had enough conversations with seven year olds lately. It's
> |not self-evident at all.
> |>>> count == Count
> |NameError
> 
> And THIS doesn't confuse a seven year old?!  Heck, it confuses me... and
> I'm old.

Dave, you haven't mentioned the bitter religious wars between the
O-slashers and the 0-slashers, so you can't be *really* old.

The problem is one of where you drive in your peg on the scale between
bit-by-bit exactness and "equivalent for the job in hand". Bitwise
exact is unfortunately all too easy and all too often not a bright
idea.

Skip the admittedly sometimes enlightening chats with 7yos. Moving
outside the domain of variable names into the real world, try talking
to the computer system users and customers who are affected by
sillinesses such as:

(1) rejecting customer transactions because "John Citizen" != "JOHN
CITIZEN"

(2) rejecting customer transactions because "John  Arthur" != "John
Arthur"

(3) doubling taxes because "000123456" != "123456"

and ask them what they think of bit-by-bit exactness.

Cheers,
John