>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>And here's an example where at compile time it looks like it should generate an error, though at runtime it is OK:
>

>that = '"'
>x = "this&that
>

>Think that's what you meant :) Nice example BTW.

Proving once again - to me anyways - that it's not what we humans think we wrote or meant, it's only important what VFP "thinks". ;)