[DUG] XE Upgrade

[Jeremy North]

Here is a link to new items in XE.

http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/What%27s_New_in_Delphi_and_C%2B%2BBuilder_XE



On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Jeremy North <jeremy.north at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jolyon Smith <jsmith at deltics.co.nz> wrote:
>> Yep, I forget the item #'s and don't have time to look them up right now,
>> but there was a suggestion w.r.t ASSERT() syntax highlighting that is
>> indicated as resolved/fixed/whatever.  It isn't.
>
> This got the infamous "Inactive" resolution. Basically that means we
> looked at it and don't really want to have it come up on our list as
> either Open or Reported.
>
> It is pretty lame but it was really a "Quick Fix" measure to pump up
> the QC figures - in my opinion.
>
> However a comment does say that since report 20628 was closed as
> "won't do" i wouldn't be holding your breath for your report (20639)
>
> Report No: 20628 (RAID: 234497)          Status: Closed
> Suggestion: True, False, and Self should be highlighted as keywords
> http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=20628
>
>> There was another which is a bug caused by qualifying class names in a form
>> declaration or naming a form with the same name as a component class on that
>> form.
>>
>> e.g. File New VCL Application, rename form as MainMenu (yielding a form
>> class name of TMainMenu) then drop a TMainMenu component on it.
>>
>> The original problem as reported at the time no longer occurs but the IDE
>> remains broken in a new way in this scenario (hence my allowance that we
>> should be generous and allow for things having been re-broken in new ways,
>> and/or not adequately re-tested).
>
> I noticed that one. Luckily it won't ever effect me but I could see it
> being annoying the first time you were trying to figure out what was
> going on.
>
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz] On
>> Behalf Of Jeremy North
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2010 16:30
>> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
>> Subject: Re: [DUG] XE Upgrade
>>
>> I had a look at your items. A couple of items are suggestions for new
>> directives/reserved words. These decisions are not taken lightly.
>> Especially prior to the new back end compiler.
>>
>> A lot of these were made during the time Danny was looking after the
>> compiler, it is no secret he wasn't a fan of adding new reserved
>> words/directives. Just look at the namespace debacle.
>>
>> I think this one has been addressed, there is a TopForm boolean
>> parameter now. Been there for a while as well I believe.
>>
>> Report No: 2392          Status: Reported
>> Implementation of GetParentForm (Forms unit) is erroneous/incomplete
>> http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=2392
>>
>>
>>>> Which raises the question of what a “fixed/closed QC entry” actually
>> means,
>>
>> There should also be a "Resolution" assigned to the report. This will
>> give more information. A "Fixed" bug should state the version it was
>> fixed in. A closed bug will state a reason for closure. Such as "Can't
>> Reproduce" or "Won't do" etc etc.
>>
>> The internal system generally has more information regarding the
>> reason, but rarely is that transferred to the QC item. I reported this
>> which is open but personally I don't see it being addressed.
>>
>> Report No: 20307          Status: Open
>> When a report has its status pulled from RAID, a comment about the
>> final status should be mandatory
>> http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=20307
>>
>>
>>
>> I've got over 180 open/reported reports out of over 400. You aren't
>> the only one not seeing action on qc reports.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jolyon Smith <jsmith at deltics.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Some had certainly not been addressed as of Delphi 2010.  These are
>> unlikely
>>> to have been addressed in XE either since their status already suggests
>> that
>>> they are considered fixed (or in the case of suggestions/enhancements,
>>> implemented) when they are not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which raises the question of what a “fixed/closed QC entry” actually
>> means,
>>> if things can be fixed/closed with nothing actually having been done (or,
>>> let’s be generous, whatever has been done subsequently undone or at least
>>> not properly tested).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of Colin Johnsun
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2010 15:49
>>>
>>> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
>>> Subject: Re: [DUG] XE Upgrade
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jolyon,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 August 2010 13:12, Jolyon Smith <jsmith at deltics.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I might be more impressed if they had actually fixed some of the bugs I
>>> myself reported that have languished in QC for 8+ years (and had not
>>> introduced new ones related to those in the meantime).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just curious, did they ever get around to fixing those reported bugs this
>>> time round. From my understanding of the history of Delphi, during that
>> time
>>> (8 years ago) Borland really turned its back on Delphi in its push to get
>>> away from its dev tool roots. But in the last year or two EMBT had made a
>>> big effort to address those concerns and really tackle a lot of those
>> cases
>>> in QC. Did they deliver?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
>>> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
>>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>>> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
>>> unsubscribe
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
>> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
>> unsubscribe
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
>> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe
>>
>