Re: 4.0 Beta 2 Due Out on Tuesday, got your bug reports in?
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Aug 22, 2009
- 1328 views
Oh, I see, so with warning effectively overrides without warning.
Yes, and does that surprise you? The reverse is also true - without warning overrides with warning
I would say however there is an ambiguity in there, since the code with the 'disputed' variable occurs after the without warning, so without warning should turn off warnings until they are turned back on again with with warning. This just seems the logical way to do it to me. Maybe not the easier way though.
That is exactly what is happening already. The usage checking occurs whenever a block of code ends - such as the end of a routine, a 'switch', a loop, a source file, ... When a block ends, usage of variables declared in that block is checked using whatever the warning setting is at that time.
In this specific instance, just before the end of the file, the warnings are turned on. So when the end of file is reached, Euphoria checks the usage of variables declared at the file level, based on that with warnings statement. Thus we get the message. This is not a bug in the warning reporting system. If anything is a bug it is that final line of code. It should be removed.
But that begs the question, "why is check_calls declared at all and why is it assigned anything?" Both the declaration and the assignment are redundant and could be seen as a coding mistake - thus the warning.
Now consider what you seem to be asking for - that declarations occuring whilst a without warning is active should be immune from usage checking.
---- file begins ---- without warning integer foo procA() with warning procB() ---- file ends ----
When this file ends, foo is still not used and warnings are on. So should a message be issued or not? Remember, usage checking occurs at the end of a block, which is when variables go out of scope. (Of course none of this applies to exposed variables - global, public, or export ones.) If we didn't do usage checking at the end of a block, when else could be do it? It doesn't make sense to do it while a variable is still in scope because it cound have been used after the usage check.
It is hard to see the intention of the author of v3 machine.e, but I think what was being attempted by the final with warning was to restore the warnings to whatever they were when the file began. But as you can see, this is not the way that usage checking works. Now, in OpenEuphoria v4 we have better ways to do that sort of thing.
---- file begins ---- with warning save -- Save whatever warnings are active without warning integer foo procA() with warning restore -- Restore from the last save point. procB() ---- file ends ----
The warning is properly triggered since the declared variable never appears to the right of an equals sign.
Yes it does though
-- variables and routines used in safe.e without warning integer check_calls check_calls = 1
What do you mean by "Yes it does though"? The example code you supplied does not issue any warning message.
By the way, OpenEuphoria now issues differently worded messages now ...
-- variables and routines used in safe.e with warning integer check_calls check_calls = 1
Warning ( not_used ):
<0320>:: testw.ex - module variable 'check_calls' is assigned but never used
-- variables and routines used in safe.e with warning integer check_calls
Warning ( not_used ):
<0229>:: testw.ex - module variable 'check_calls' is not used
