Bug in *report with -fp

[Bill Akers]

Bruce Easton wrote:

>My response is inline disagreeing with Jay and somewhat, Ken
>-Bruce
>
>  
>
>>Jay R. Ashworth wrote Monday, March 12, 2007 8:18 PM:
>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 02:42:48PM -0500, fpsupport wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Quoting Fairlight (Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:17:17 -0500):
>>>      
>>>

(deleted a long dissertation)

I am coming into this thread very late, but Mark and Jay and Ken and 
some others are exactly right in that if a flag(-fp) is used to run a 
processing only routine, it should complain if that processing table is 
missing. In effect, you are replacing the normal report format with a 
processing only format that generates no report but performs some other 
type of procedure..Ergo, if fp complains about a non-existent output 
format it should, by default, assign the same behavior to  a 
non-existent processing table that is used as the output format.
It is difficult to believe that anyone is running a routine which 
generates no report and performs no processing, on purpose. Therefore, 
the argument that someone's programming would be somehow corrupted by 
having fp complain about a non-existent processing table when that 
processing table is the output of the routine, is best characterized as 
misleading. The idea that another flag or variable is needed to allow 
the previous behavior to continue also does not meet the credibility 
test, since it is almost a given that the described behavior was never 
implemented on purpose by even a semi-proficient programmer.

Maybe, someone can show how I am wrong?