Re: trace(1) bug
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co?u?> Nov 14, 2007
- 546 views
CChris wrote: > > Pete Lomax wrote: > >}}} <eucode> > >procedure x() > >integer i > > for i=1 to 10 do > > end for > > for i=1 to 20 do > > end for > ></eucode> {{{ > If there are both an integer i and a loop index i, the later shadows the > former In the case given, I meant they should be one and the *same*. Correct, this would constitute a change to the language spec. I trust you agree that allowing the above construct cannot break any legacy code. Can you think of any reason, or example, why all 3 [local] i above refer to same var would cause a problem? Regards, Pete PS there may be cases where a predeclared "integer i" must instead be "atom i" to marry with subsequent f.p. loops, I hope such can be handled ok.