undeclared variables getting through in Strict Compilation mode

Dr. Hawkins dochawk at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 04:38:17 CET 2015

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Bob Sneidar <bobsneidar at iotecdigital.com>

> Ya know, simply turning off explicit variables for now allows you to move
> forward with your project. Who knows, you might like it. ;-)

With my typing, that would be a bad idea (tm), Dr. Venkman . . .

I was able to go forward by declaring the variable like it should again.

Actually, I'm not happy in general that variable names are case
insensitive.  But then, I also want c-like variable scoping (can't think of
anything else I want from that language, but the ability to declare a local
variable within just about any structure, and to wrap {} around a block of
code to create a local scope are wonderful.

Aside from that, though . . .

And on further consideration, i'm not sure that not using strict
compilation would have helped--this variable needed to be global, and was
declared global in other contexts, and needed to be declared global here.

OK, I'm also a global variable hater, but recognize their necessity in some
circumstances for the main data array and some control values.  I do,
though, make sure that my code still *could* replace such references with a
getVar() function if I wanted to eimplement one later.  But I learned about
the price of context switches and calls  twenty years ago (wait!? how
long?) in graduate school when I wrote an artificial life model in "proper"
smalltalk, rewrote in Fortran, and got a 45,000:1 speedup (and I think I
had the fortran index order backwards at that!)

Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

More information about the use-livecode mailing list