> > No STATIC with CONST. Or maybe the compiler is more tolerant than that? > > Maybe the compiler is a too much good guy :) > > I think that the compiler shouldn't allow to do something like that: > > > PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer > > DIM a AS Integer = 0 > DIM b AS Integer = 0 > > FOR a = 1 TO TabStrip3.Count STEP 1 > IF TabStrip3[(a - 1)].Caption = IdCaption THEN > b = a > a = TabStrip3.Count > RETURN a > ENDIF > NEXT > > END > > > Someone thought that this code is good one. > > Leaving aside the obvious conceptual confusion of the author, and that > the routine doesn't do what it claims, it is important to note that it > is possible to change the variable that controls the FOR structure, > and included the return statement inside the loop. > > I think the compiler should not allow these things, at least for mercy > through the eyes of those who are finally forced to read code like > this.
Why shouldn't the compiler allow to modify a loop variable? It is sometimes useful. Why shouldn't the compiler allow to return from inside a loop? It is perfectly valid to do that. A bad programmer using some syntax for writing bad code does not necessary imply that that syntax should be forbidden. Regards, -- Benoît Minisini ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
