> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Sannyasin Siddhanathaswami via 4D_Tech > <[email protected]> wrote: > Aloha,
Howzit? By the way, do you go by Sannyasin or Siddhanathaswami? (I've always seen Sannyasin used as a title/honorific, but I don't know in your case.) > Thanks for the tip. Tons and tons of errors in the first run of Check Syntax > in the compiler. It is nice that it highlights the line numbers/issues in an > open method. The errors though are mostly or all, “The Variable xxx has not > been explicitly declared in the typing methods.” As I don't need/want to > compile, how do I use this to my advantage? Are you saying I should add > declarations to the compiler method for all variables? Yes. Well, all parameters, process, and interprocess variables. Locals need to be declared in the method. I set my compiler methods up like this: Compiler_Module So, for the 'Accounts' module: Compiler_Accounts I then have three sections in the method: Variables Arrays Parameters Why do it like this? * I can move modules between databases (perhaps of no use to you). * I always know right where to look. * It helps me maintain the practice of deciding what module "owns" any bit of code or data. * The methods don't usually get too long or unwieldily. > What I’d really like, is to have only typing errors within a method > highlighted. > > For example, in the method I’m working on, my first lines are: > C_TEXT($0) > C_TEXT($1) > > This give an error saying these variables are not declare in typing methods. I > don’t see how these “errors" highlighted in my code will help with this. A couple of things come to mind from your post: * Debugging and reprogramming a live 4D system seems like a super stressful and risky thing to do to me. What about making a copy of the structure that you clean up using a single-user development copy? * $0 and $1 are different than locals. Parameters are subtly different to locals in a few ways and very different in an important way: they define how data can go in and out of the method. So, they're not local to the method - they define the method's interactions. So, it kind of makes sense to declare them in a Compiler_ method. * It's not just your imagination: The Compiler_ method system is awkward and a bit of a pain. It was set up this way in the 1980s and has not improved since. I see it as a housekeeping nuisance and don't worry about it too much. * You're correct: Fixing most of these 'errors' is going to do nothing of use for you. In a lot of cases, it's just housekeeping with exactly zero benefit. In other cases, you'll just be making explicit what was working perfectly implicitly. This task is so daunting now because you've got such a huge backlog. After that, the process isn't hard. My impression from people that have shoveled through a pile of errors like yours is that they were ultimately glad that they did it. * You _will_ find real bugs. Things like this are subtle: For ($I;1;$count) $value:=$array($l) End for As you clear out the nonsense 'errors' and get into the real problems, you should see some benefits. I always find it humbling to come across "working" code that has had flaws for years. Even when I've written a bunch of tests cases, it can still happen. I'm of the school of thought that thinks writing your own test cases is super likely to lead you to not thinking of exactly the right cases! As you get further into it, you'll also probably run into situations involving multiple methods and shared variables where you have to figure out what you were thinking (or what someone else was thinking) way back when. A lot of times, you'll come up with a way of solving the same problem much more neatly. That always feels good. Of course, be careful about this sort of work. It's risky just "improving" things. Make notes about what you find, even if you don't "fix" it. There is a lot of wisdom in the old phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Still, the temptation will be there... > Right now it’s crashing on Distinct Values, which I suspect means there are not > “distinct” values in the selection. Have you tested the data file with MSC? Have you tried rebuilding indexes? ********************************************************************** 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] **********************************************************************
