OpenEuphoria

Re: trace(1) bug

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blu?yonder.co?uk> Nov 14, 2007
• 568 views

CChris wrote:
> I have always been a little surprised at repeated "i = xxx"
> lines in ex.err; I expect some are downright confused. The extra lines 
> would just go away.

> Which solution is preferrable?

IMNSHO: allow only *ONE* i per context.

allow eg:

procedure x()
integer i -- see point C:
    for i=1 to 10 do
        if i=5 then exit end if
    end for
    ?i
    for i=1 to 20 do end for
    ?i
end procedure
}}}
<eucode>
A: to work (currently you get "attempt to redefine i"),
B: to display either 5,20 or 5,21 (my preference is for latter),
C: ditto whether i predefined or not,
D: any ex.err lists one and only one i, per scope.
E: any trace(1) screen "" "" "", except for:
F: (erm?) trace screen allows inspection of callee i and other vars.
G: whatever you do, you must still prohibit nested "for i=" loops.
H: (doh) same deal for A:..G: with top-level code.
I: top-level: for i=1 to 2 do end for integer i now craps out => "tough"!

Obviously F: is a frill perhaps beyond the scope (no pun intended) of the
immediate discussion.

One caveat I can see is this:
}}}
<eucode>
   if x then
       for i=1 to 10 do end for
       ?i -- OK
   else
       ?i -- //iff i not predeclared, may warrant a warning?
   end if

Though personally, I'm OK with run-time "has not been assigned a value" and no
compile-time warning, there may be many others, YMMV, etc.

Regards,
Pete