On Feb 17, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Joseph J. Strout wrote:
At 2:07 PM -0800 2/17/06, CV wrote:
The debugger is aware of the nil return, so shouldn't this be
caught therein?
"Should" is a matter of opinion -- I'd be inclined to say yes, but
others might disagree. The matter of fact is, the compiler was
built with the assumption that arrays would never be nil. The fact
that you can now get a nil array reference is a side-effect of the
relatively new feature allowing arrays to be return values. Yes,
probably the compiler "should" have been fixed in every place that
touches an array to check whether it's nil and raise an exception,
but it was not. Since you say there are already feedback reports
about it, I don't see that anything more needs to be done by us.
I'm sure they'll get to this issue (or set of issues) when they can.
Best,
- Joe
Thanks for the info and thoughts.
Jack
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
