L
Laura Stern
Guest
I agree with you. IMO, this is just a bug. There seems to be a development philosophy that assumes it is OK to ignore some mistakes. Oh - you didn't want that field? Well, it doesn't exist anyway, so I guess we can just ignore that! No.... It means you are not excluding a field that you meant to exclude. You could do the same for a startup parameter that doesn't exist (due to typo). Oh... there is no such thing, we'll just ignore it. No... It means you are not getting the behavior you want. Of course, fixing this could cause a change in behavior if some ABL developer never noticed their mistake. It would be a discussion we'd have to have.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...