UCC Forced Compiling ¿by pass Errors/Warnings?

[osmel92]

A long time ago, I have looked at a couple of "class" codes in the files ".U" and I have seen that many of them lack up to the "{ }" in some parts of the code and still compile the .U, there are some way to compile forcing errors or warnings ???

[Barbie]

{ } are block markers and can be left out if a block has one statement only. But probably I didn't understand your question.

[sektor2111]

No, you will not want a mod to be compiled with errors because this is what will be, a mod with errors.
Yes, my compilations are always "0 errors 0 warnings", this is how a compiled result should be used.

There definitely codes should be checked well because those brackets in certain cases have a major word to say in how the code works.
Either way brackets are not really needed for "single decision" cases:

Code: Select all

if (!bIsPlayer)
	Destroy();
else
	HidePlayer();

Here code hosted is smaller than a code with brackets, brackets are not needed. I'm avoiding all sort of brackets when are not needed and compiler is not having any fault because "coder" uses a wrong syntax or mismatch types or whatever fake codes.
In a similar stage we do have some brackets if code must do some something else than required activity - such as a log line:

Code: Select all

if (!bIsPlayer)
{
	log("I'm out",Self.Name);
	Destroy();
}
else
	HidePlayer();

Second statement it's simple but... we can have more:

Code: Select all

if (!bIsPlayer)
{
	log("I'm out",Self.Name);
	Destroy();
}
else
{
	log("Silence, I'll be back !",Self.Name);
	HidePlayer();
}

These are snippets from whatever custom Pawn - logs definitely can be delivered using some "verbose" stuff and then... it will go a bit more complex:

Code: Select all

if (!bIsPlayer)
{
	if (bVerbose)
		log("I'm out",Self.Name);
	Destroy();
}
else
{
	if (bVerbose)
		log("Silence, I'll be back !",Self.Name);
	HidePlayer();
}

[osmel92]

I understand these explanations well, only that I want to recompile some script that was already as it is, this when recompiling it generates mistmatch errors "=" errors with "class or expressions" when it had really already been compiled in this way originally and that's why I want to force the errors to make the script with those expressions or classes that are causing problems strangely for no reason .

[sektor2111]

Compiling a code by brute force will result in accessing something which doesn't exist or is unavailable which won't have links pointing executions to nowhere.
Imagine another scenario for a mismatch type. Try to put a Sound on a Decoration instead of a Texture. Let me know what you get... Things are not going to work this way.

[osmel92]

Yes, what happens is that in the case of TO3.4 many of the compilations are brute force because its original .u files are very problematic when compiling and this generates many conflicts but one knows that by forcing this it works because you know what it is doing and where each function goes, that is why I am interested in knowing if there is a way to do it, since in UT99

[Eternity]

If errors, for instance, caused by missed dependencies in "EditPackages" list, then it is not practically possible to bypass such errors.
Compiler can bypass some errors though, such as attempts to assign a value to constant.

Overall, even some warnings may indicate compiled package will not work properly...