On 2018-03-05 7:55 PM, Peter Dow wrote:
If the compiler does not complain, is there some other consequence to
failing the "MUST"?
Not sure what you mean by "other consequence" ...
The consequence is that don't copy the prototype into the source with
the procedure, and then you change the parameters for the procedure
code, then even if you think you have made a matching change in the
prototype that all the callers are using, the compiler can't verify that
the caller prototype matches the procedure.
So if you get the change to the prototype wrong, or if you completely
forget to change the prototype, you'll get parameter mismatch errors at
runtime, even if you recompile everything. The worst case is that you'll
get data corruption errors that cause incorrect results without actually
causing any exceptions. Basically the same story as we used to have with
CALL + PARM, where there was no validation even possible.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.
midrange.com
