IntelliJ makes a great job of continuing to parse a source file (for preview warnings etc) despite errors in the file. In other words the whole file doesn't light up red when there's a syntax error early on. It appears as if it can't make sense of an expression it sets it to 'null' and soldiers on.
When I'm working on a very large codebase, I'd like a compiler that did the same. That allowed me to run a program despite a compile error or two. Think of it as 'errors as warnings' as opposed to 'warnings as errors'. If the execution reached a part of the program that couldn't compile, it's translated to a runtime error. Why would I want to run a broken program? Isn't that the antithesis of the view that any red flags as to problems should be raised as soon as possible? Well, it might be that the compile error was caused by another programmer, in a part of the program I rarely execute. Then I'd like to get on with my work while he fixes it. It might be that I made a mistake that caused one build error and two test errors. If I can run the tests, those errors might be informative to me. Maybe I'd like as much information as possible from my continuous integration server, rather than it throwing in the towel before the tests, because one function won't compile. I would never suggest part-broken code should be published or deployed, but I think occasionally it could be a useful productivity and debugging aid. Is this a concept that has been tried? Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
