Greg Woodhouse wrote >when it comes to computation things get >more tricky, and the distinction is more important. For example, in the >program fragment > >SET X=1 >SET X=1 > >static (essntially syntactic) analysis can tell me that the second >stement is superfluous and need not be executed, but things may not >always be that simple
Right. The duplication of itself is a pretty good indicator of a semantic error. If I were to read this code in an actual MUMPS routine, I would be surprised if the second SET was simply superfluous. My first expectation would be that a different variable, such as Y, was intended in the second SET. --------------------------------------- Jim Self Systems Architect, Lead Developer VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself) ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
