Prof Abimbola Olowofoyeku wrote:
Don't worry. What you *meant* was expressed as clearly as it could be. I was just insinuating that the fact that GPC does so in some contexts, while it doesn't do so in some other contexts (which can then lead to hidden or obscure errors in programs) indicates that what GPC does is perhaps not "enough".
I agree.
This is of course a matter of opinion and interpretation, and I accept that being 100% BP compatible in this respect is not a priority. But at the very least, this issue should be documented - or GPC should generate an error
Finding the places where to put the errors is already half the job required to implement the BP compatible behaviour. (What GPC does now is in places where otherwise an error would be produces, but now we're talking about places which are valid already, but should get a new meaning. Though I can roughly imagine where to look for those places, it would require some amount of testing to make sure I don't miss anything or change the behaviour in cases where it shouldn't. I'm reluctant to do this now, shortly before a release.)
No, it does not make any difference to me, because I have long ago come to terms with the subtle differences. However, others may not have done so, and newbies to GPC will certainly not have. They will then have problems, and will come here to talk about it. Then another discussion of this type may ensue. This can reoccur again and again. We might all end up being grandfathers, and still be answering this question ;-). This is why I am suggesting that we should do something about it.
Unfortunately I think there are some more issues (range checking, qualified identifiers, ...) that the same would apply to.
In generally, I have agreed that we should add this feature (via the switch). However, I don't consider it as important as many other things to do, so the chances that I will do it soon are rather small ...
Fair enough. But can you at least generate an error or add this to the FAQ (i.e., if it is not there already?).
I didn't see it there. Perhaps you might want to write a suggested wording for the FAQ.
Frank