Single Line Comments - Forum - OpenEdge Development - Progress Community
 Forum

Single Line Comments

  • That means that in order to get the "new behavior", all future clients need to add a client-site parameter in order to get good compiles. 

    IMPO, I'd "take the hit" on breaking some code to get this new behavior as the default. 

    Tim 

    On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Rob Fitzpatrick <bounce-robfsit@community.progress.com> wrote:
    Reply by Rob Fitzpatrick

    Laura,

    If you introduce new language behaviour that potentially breaks existing code (even though it may be rare), and you plan on adding a new client param to help ease the migration, please make the param default to the existing behaviour and take a non-default value to permit the new behaviour.  Otherwise I don't see the point.

    Stop receiving emails on this subject.

    Flag this post as spam/abuse.




    --
    Tim Kuehn:  Senior Consultant  - TDK Consulting Services
    President - Ontario PUG 
    Program Committee Chair - PUG Challenge Americas, 
    Course Instructor: Intro to OO Concepts for Procedural Programmers

    Skype: timothy.kuehn
    Ph: 519-576-8100
    Cell: 519-781-0081
  • That would be very shortsighted. 
     
    In the rare case where a new language behavior conflicts with old behavior the new behavior is most likely  an important improvement.
     
    The language would be in a pretty sad state by version 25 if we introduce such improvements as options that you always have to specify.  
     
     
    From: Rob Fitzpatrick [mailto:bounce-robfsit@community.progress.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:16 AM
    To: TU.OE.Development@community.progress.com
    Subject: RE: [Technical Users - OE Development] Single Line Comments
     
    Reply by Rob Fitzpatrick

    Laura,

    If you introduce new language behaviour that potentially breaks existing code (even though it may be rare), and you plan on adding a new client param to help ease the migration, please make the param default to the existing behaviour and take a non-default value to permit the new behaviour.  Otherwise I don't see the point.

    Stop receiving emails on this subject.

    Flag this post as spam/abuse.

  • Just to be clear, my previous post was a response to Rob's post.  I'm in full agreement with Tim.  

  • I don't have a huge issue with this being implemented as the default going forward. As long as we get a parameter to turn it off.

    I think the real danger is having people recompile their code and get different results when they compile. Things that don't result in compile errors.

    It would be nice to have some kind of compiler option/warning to let people know that their code is being compiled differently than with a previous version. Some other products let you set a compatibility mode for either the actual compile or just a strict check of your code. This would also be nice if you are a vendor supporting multiple versions of OE with one code base.

  • Another vote for "//" (no whitespace) from me

    No need to repeat the arguments already mentioned before...

  • I vote for "//" (no whitespace).

    (if this is breaking exising code it can be fixed easily; adding a startup/compiler parameter to not use single line comments would be beneficial for those who cannot fix the code - should be only a few occasions anyway)

  • Another vote for "//" with no whitespace


    Paul Mowat

    Principal Software Developer

    Advanced Business Solutions

  • I don't know what to think of myself...

    1,700 .w  

    2,650 .p

    23  cls  (just adopting)

    An not even one \\ nor // on code

    (I vote for i++, //, and strict mode)