To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=56635
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 28 03:22:51 -0700 2005 ------- >But the default compatability mode is false isn't it? so it seems old code will >run happily using a private variable from other modules ( in otherwords the >scoping rules are ignored ), surely thats not good? it would seem more sensible >to impose the correct ( as in an error is generated if you do that ) by default >and offer a fallback via configuration or something for older code. Maybe I >don't understand what exactly the compatability mode is for ( didn't see it >documented ) mmm actually there two of them, theres that other one you can set >via 'OPTION' as well. 'tis a bit confusing. The (only) reason for the existance of CompatibilityMode (Runtime behaviour) and Option Compatible (compiler behaviour) is to avoid breaking old programs. And as there has been a bug for a long time allowing the use of private variables of other modules this wrong behaviour has to be kept for compatiblity turned of. Currently compatiblity is turned of by default and it has to be because old programs don't know that these options exist and so cannot use them. But I agree, this concept is not very nice and indeed there are plans to make the compatibility mode a module property with default = false for old modules and default = true for newly created modules. This property could both control the runtime and compiler option, so the confusion also could be reduced. >I disagree here, if option EXPLICIT is set then all variables should be >declared >right?, but using a variable declared as private in another module imo breaks >that, especially since a private variable has by definition module scope only, >the module the variable is used in ( but not defined in ) surely should have no >knowledge of this variable true? But it IS declared, because the private variable is not really private for if compat- bility is turned of. That may not be nice but it's fact. Anyway Option Explicit only throws an error if an identifier can not be found. But due to the bug the private variable IS found. So anything is ok from the view of Option Explicit. But I think we agree that changing the default behaviour like described above would improve things significantly. :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
