A For-Next bug in 1.2.8-s682

[Darkstar]

I also agree with both Britlion and you. I'm going to implement this behaviour by default. If the programmer wants the dynamic behaviour s/he will be able to enable it using something like:

Code:

#pragma for dynamic

or

Code:

#pragma for static

which will be enabled by default (needs not to be used unless you want to switch from/to dynamic for). What do you think?

Well, static should be a default behaviour yes for consistency but is there
any benfits to be derived from dynamic that outweigs the costs? If the
answer is no then why go through the work of implementing a directive and
it would only add to the confusion amoung coders that expect a language
to behave in a certain way in my oppinion.

Darkstar.