Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeff Higgins Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: the true literal Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:07:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6b9e92482af47766954d85fb77d372f5"; logging-data="2045"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pvXKO+aVeA1XDOt4vKVuFG6T03fOuGb8=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:674504kaFfq2cQcZKxszagLnlLI= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26576 On 11/22/2013 09:37 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 11/21/2013 11:23 PM, Jeff Higgins wrote: >> [...] >> 3.9. Keywords >> >> 50 character sequences, formed from ASCII letters, are reserved for use >> as keywords and cannot be used as identifiers (§3.8). >> >> Keyword: one of >> abstract continue for new switch >> assert default if package synchronized >> boolean do goto private this >> break double implements protected throw >> byte else import public throws >> case enum instanceof return transient >> catch extends int short try >> char final interface static void >> class finally long strictfp volatile >> const float native super while > > Note the absence of `null' from this list. The situation > seems very similar to that of `true' and `false': all three > are "literals" rather than "keywords". These literals happen > to be spelled entirely with letters rather than with arcane > symbol clusters like `314.159e-2', but they're still "literals". > > To me, this seems a good example of a "difference that makes > no difference" -- but a hair-splitting literal-ist (sorry) might > find a difference just so he can feel smug about it. > I wish I had found before I had first responded to the OP. I think it will be a satisfactory answer to his question. In general discussion, including usenet, a hair-splitting literal-ist (ok?) stance can be taken, and motivated by smug. Specification writers, compiler writers, general purpose program writers,and others might have other motivations. I'm certain that Stefan Ram was not seeking an answer to his question in preparation to take a smug stance in some discussion. My motivation to respond to Stefan's question was not smug, even if it appeared hair-splitting and literalist. Other respondents have not come off as smug to me. The (online) Free Dictionary has literalist as a noun and literalistic as an adjective.