OpenEuphoria

Re: trace(1) bug

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyo?der.co?uk> Nov 16, 2007
• 556 views

c.k.lester wrote:
> 
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> > c.k.lester wrote:
> > >       for i = 1 to 10 do -- DO NOT ALLOW
> > By the same token should the compiler complain about:
> >        i=11
> > If not, why one and not the other?
> 
> Why should it complain in the case you present?
The point I am making is that it should not.

> this would be easy to debug.
Easier than a for loop slip-up?

> > In my book both mistakes are equally easily made, found and fixed.
> 
> It might not be easily found in the case I presented, especially if the
> declaration and assignment were two screens separate from the errant for
> loop.
Why would the assignment error I presented be any easier to find?

> I admit I'm wanting to protect the coder here from making a mistake that
> might be hard to debug.
This I understand, the question I am posing is whether the existing error
message actually gains us any additional protection in practice. The more I think
along the lines of "that error message must be there for a reason, it must be
doing some good", the less I can quantify what that good really is.

Regards,
Pete