On Tue Dec 22 05:30:41 2015, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > Code: > enum Animal (Cat, Dog) > > Result: > ===SORRY!=== > Cannot invoke this object > > > Well, the error message is not so good, but you can say “who is going to do > that anyway?”. Well, consider this: > > Code: > enum Animal (Cat => 25, Dog) > > Result: > ===SORRY!=== > Cannot invoke this object > > Which is just a shorter version of this: > > Code: > enum Animal (Cat => 25, Dog => 26) > > Result: > (no output, OK) > > In which case you probably want to do this instead: > > Code: > enum Bool «:Cat(25) Dog» > > Result: > (no output, OK, Dog is actually 26) > > > Possible solution: > If there is no way to see what is happening then just any better error > message than “Cannot invoke this object” (which does not even provide a > line number) will do. > If there is a way to see that the user actually wanted to use <> or «» then > it should suggest that.
We now just report Cat and Dog as undeclared symbols, which makes clear that they were interpreted as lookups. This means they get a line number. Turns out that: constant foo = bar; Did the same kind of blow-up (cannot invoke) rather than reporting bar undeclared; I've also fixed that. Tests for both in S32-exceptions/misc.t.
