> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:01 AM, marian.edu wrote:
> there is no technical reason to impose same restrictions as for static syntax (the prove is this just works)
sorry i was not being clear. let me try again.
what i meant to say is that the rules for static and dynamic should be the same and static ought to be changed to match the dynamic ones. The dynamic ones work because the names are in quotes. But Laura is the compiler expert and it is not for me to say how hard or practical such a change would be.
The one thing I just found that does not work is using our special bufHandle::<field-name> syntax to get the value of the field for a dynamic temp-table. E.g.:
DEF VAR tt AS HANDLE.
DEF VAR bhdl AS HANDLE.
CREATE TEMP-TABLE tt.
bhdl = tt:DEFAULT-BUFFER-HANDLE.
MESSAGE bhdl::foo() VIEW-AS ALERT-BOX. /* You get a runtime error: BUFFER-FIELD foo was not found */
If I had made the name "foo(s)", that last line (with bhdl::foo(s)) will not even compile.
Keywords like "character" ARE allowed - even in a statically defined table - much to my surprise!
Laura Stern Keywords like "character" ARE allowed - even in a statically defined table - much to my surprise!
Unfortunately "transaction" is not a legal TT field name, and that led to some inconsistent TT field names. :(