You gotta fix this!

This is just embarrassing and is preventing me from considering Lucee:


public number function t (number x, number x) {
    return x+x;

writeoutput( t (10,20) );


Doesn’t throw duplicate argument error !!

How was this oversight possible?

If that’s your code, it would prevent me from considering you :rofl:

Search the bug tracker and enter a ticket if there isn’t one.

1 Like

Is it really SUCH a problem?
Sure it is a bug that should be addressed.
With unlimited resources, it and every other bug ever found would all be fixed the moment they are reported.

But I am certain that you can also appreciate that resources aren’t unlimited, either and thus all bugs / enhancements must be prioritised.

Subsequently - in comparison to “BUG A; has no workaround” vs this one - where you can simply ensure that you do not have multiple arguments with the same name, declared in the same function, then again, hopefully you’ll agree that BUG A - and all the others (with no “simple” workaround) - win the “Which ticket gets the resources, competition”.

It’s also possible that because it got put on the back-burner at some stage - that it simply fell off the RADAR. A polite prompt, to ask about it’s status is always appropriate / welcomed, too.

Lucee is open-source.
If there is anything that, ever, bothers someone enough - they’re openly encouraged to fix it / add it / remove it / “whatever” it and submit a pull-request.

Ticket in Jira: LDEV-4122 Multiple arguments with the same name in UDF doesn’t throw an error

Glib? Hardly.
I was wholly sincere,.
Your initial message states this is the first time you have ever posted and also reads that you don’t use Lucee.

I stand by my comment as being an appropriate and helpful answer to anyone - especially someone that that is seen to be brand new to the project.

So you’ll have to forgive me if you feel you deserved more or some other response.

I always recommend playing the ball, and not the player.

Whilst this is a bug and it should be fixed, it’s only a bug that surfaces if someone writes invalid code (which itself is a bug in their own code), so the most bother the dev will have is that one of their tests will fail, they’ll go “WTF?”, see the stupid glitch in their own code, and fix it. Job done. This bug is very unlikely to surface, and has minimal impact when it does. In the bigger scheme of things it’s just not that important compared to a lot of other stuff that really does need looking at.

As for whether this should have been fixed in the past? Maybe. Maybe there were better things to be getting on with. However… lamenting what possibly could have happened in the past is a fool’s errand has we cannot time travel and can’t do anything about it.

I note that JS on Chrome has the same issue, btw.

Finally… and this might seem rich coming from me of all people, but: your tone sux. I recommend you have a bit of a look at yourself, and… conduct yourself a bit more respectfully.



thanks Adam, well put

1 Like

You only needed to stop there.