At 11:53 AM +0800 4/22/06, Andy Dent wrote:
However, it was my understanding that the problem has now been
identified as NOT just code size but complexity, as quoted below.
I don't consider 123 lines excessive!
I believe it's the combination of both size and complexity. The
sample project attached to the bug report has 343 lines and over
54,000 characters in the single offending method. Most of it is a
large number of string literals that are being concatenated.
If you keep the same level of nested complexity, but reduce the
amount of text in string literals to below 32k then it compiles OK.
BTW My comment was prompted because the OP said RB was unusable for
large projects because of this bug and threatened to find another
tool. I mainly wanted to suggest that changing his coding style to
use smaller methods might be an easier and more beneficial
transition. :-)
Sure RB should handle it or give a better error message than failing
an assertion.
But unlike some bugs, this one has a straightforward workaround. And
refactoring your code to less that 32kb per method is likely to be an
improvement.
Regards,
Joe Huber
_______________________________________________
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>
