OK, that could be done. It would potentially generate far more error messages for essentially one error. I see no reason or value in that approach. I also think most programmers would strongly object.
Do you have some reason for needing to define duplicate, yet unreferenced symbols? sas On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:57 PM João Reginato <jb.regin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't see it as an additional code if it is already checking the > duplicates. It could only show an error where/when/if the duplicated field > is referenced. Simple > >
