Quote Originally Posted by wqweto View Post
The main proposition of TB is to be able to compile VBx code "as is" with minimal modifications. The other direction of code round-trip is non-essential IMO and I would very much prefer to see more extras implemented and generally going forward.

By stumbling upon *generics* in the early alphas of the compiler it was clear that Wayne's intentions were to bring VBx screaming into modernity whoever likes it or not.

Currently enhancing the syntax with new keywords will *always* bring incompatibility with old code e.g. when I recently migrated an old project of mine had to correct this innocuous looking line of code

GoTo Continue

. . . because Continue is already a keyword in TB and the parser is not clever enough to allow labels to match new keywords -- the extra effort is not worth it or it might be impossible to implement correctly.

The compiler has to decide if

Continue:

. . . is a label (as in VBx) or a logical line with two statements -- first a Continue statement and then an empty one?

cheers,
</wqw>
This would make for an interesting discussion. Is the Continue statement worth the incompatibility with projects that use Continue as a line label? I think it is but I'm curious to see any counter arguments to this.