Re: Constant definitions (was: Visual RPG vs. Other Visual ....

[Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard B Baird wrote:
>
> Barbara,
>
> is this an 'undocumented feature' or a bug?  intended, or screwup.
>

Dunno - maybe it's all of the above to some extent - I don't know the
history of it first hand.  From the original compiler code, I can't tell
if it's accidental or deliberate, since the bug (if it is a bug) is
"missing code".  But if it's a bug, it's an unfixable one since it could
be seen as a feature, and since fixing it would cause programs not to
recompile.

> i'd like an example of where this would be beneficial, not just confusing.
>

I'm of two minds about it, but see this earlier post from Nelson Smith:
"From a documentation standpoint, I kinda like being able to define
allowed
constants immediately after (and indented under) a code field, for
example,
as long as it doesn't cause any other problems."