>>>>The compiler can't catch them all.
>>With scripts - like FoxPro's execscript - I don't see how the compiler
>>can catch it - until executed. It is up to the developer to write and
>>test the script with the help of the compiler.
>
>EXECSCRIPT() has no chance of catching it. But the ones like my example are raw source code syntax errors. Those should be caught.

They likely didn't pursue it too rigorously since it would depend on the result at runtime.

missed1 = "this and &that"

that = "o'"

result is "this and o'". Which is fine.

that = 'o"'

result is "this and o""

That last could only crash at runtime (like execscript) or with some major smarts in the IDE/Compiler.

Better, IMO, is not to use & for such simple things, opting for things like the following instead.

missed1 = "this and " + m.that
that = 'o"'


>
>>>And when conditions are found in source code which reflect upon
>>>some previously unknown failure of the compiler, the failure should
>>>be quickly fixed, an apology issued, and possibly those responsible
>>>should be dragged behind a tractor for a country mile or two....
>>LOL. Well said. A little harsh though. How about 50 lashes with a
>>cooked spaghetti noodle. ;)
>
>I don't know. I'm kind of a hardliner on this subject. I proposed a $1500 per instance fine the other day for when developers don't indent CASE lines within DO CASE...ENDCASE blocks. I think some people wanted to drag me behind a tractor in that example.