RE: Possible verifier bug -- CODE400-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: RE: Possible verifier bug
From: Buck Calabro <Buck.Calabro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:41:19 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/code400-l/>
List-help: <mailto:code400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: CODE/400 Discussion & Support <code400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:code400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/code400-l>,<mailto:code400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/code400-l>,<mailto:code400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

>The verifier in V5R1 doesn't flag the following code as a syntax error:
>
>C                eval        myProc(someParms)
>
>
>Is this a little bug, or does V5R1 of RPG allow an eval
>statement without an assignment expression now?

V5R1 SEU allows this but the compiler does not.
This is the case whether myProc returns a value or not.

This is a bug but I think it's in the iSeries verifier.
  --buck

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Possible verifier bug , John Taylor

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.