OpenEuphoria

Re: trace(1) bug

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co?u?> Nov 14, 2007
• 672 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.