Hello, I'm not sure if that is a fair comparison.
if a variable is declared as integer in one method and real in another, the compiler will throw an error because the type must be fixed in order to generate compiled code. it doesn't matter if the offending code is behind conditions, that contradiction must be resolved if you want to run compiled. "preemptive mode" is a property of the thread, you can liken it to the type of a variable or the signature of a method. it defines the kind of code generated by the compiler. it would be a serious defect of the compiler if it just "assumed" and didn't question the use of unsafe features in a method marked as preemptive. > 2016/11/05 6:32、Tony Ringsmuth <[email protected]> のメール： > > My real objection is not the IP variable thing: as stated in other emails, > it’s excluding entire methods, based on any content, and any sub-content just > makes this a terrible implementation in my view. > > Think of it like this: > There are some commands that we cannot call during the redraw of a record > listing: like ALERT. > Why didn’t 4D make it such that a record listing cannot call any 4D method > that contains the command ALERT? They didn’t. > I have ALERT is some methods that are called from record listings: but it’s > behind conditions that never invoke the ALERT if I’m in the context of a > record listing. 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] **********************************************************************
