Re: Why RNF5410 for undefined variable in prototype call?

[Loyd Goodbar <loyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The wording is the issue. I would prefer, if the prototypes exists in the
code, but one of its arguments is undefined, the error would read "The
prototype QCMDEXC is unusable." Unusable implies existence (at least in the
narrow scope of programming, given an error for undefined i.e.
non-existence).

I agree it is not a major concern. I was curious to the reasoning (technical
or philosophical), using a sample program to illustrate the error. I've
found fixing 7030 and related 7503 errors solve 95% of the problems.

--Loyd

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Simon Coulter <shc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> However I can see some logic to the current behaviour. If any of the
> parameters are undefined then the call is undefined and therefore the
> associated prototype is also undefined.
>
> Should we care? I've always ignored this message and just treated it
> as an expected partner of the RNF7503 error.