in reality, "preemptive or not" is a property of the thread, not the method. the compiler needs to now how to start a thread before your code reaches a conditional statement.
a warning won't work, you will simply get a runtime error even if you find a way to "fool" the compiler. (for example, by conjuring a method name passed to "New process" by string concatenation) the idea is to leave all method properties to "agnostic", and only set "preemptive" for methods that specifically start a process (=thread); via New process, Execute on server, or a menu item. all generic subroutines will simply inherit the property of the thread in which it was called. no need for duplicates. > 2016/09/08 10:25、John DeSoi <[email protected]> のメール： > > The compile time error means that separate methods for the same functionality > will often need to be created. For example, I have a "NET_Send" method which > can transport a blob using a plugin or HTTP Post. Assuming the HTTP Post > method allows preemption but the plugin does not, I now have to split that > into two separate methods. If there are hundreds of callers to the original > method, now I have to change all of that code creating duplicate methods just > so one option can work in preemptive mode. > > Why not provide an option to get compile warnings instead of errors? Would it > be that difficult for the compiler just to emit a runtime error if a > non-preemptive command was called in a preemptive process? 宮古 啓介 セールス・エンジニア 株式会社フォーディー・ジャパン 〒150-0043 東京都渋谷区道玄坂1-10-2 渋谷THビル6F Tel: 03-6427-8441 Fax: 03-6427-8449 [email protected] www.4D.com/JP ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
