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.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jolyon Smith <jsm...@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-boun...@delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-boun...@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 <jsm...@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-boun...@delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-boun...@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 <jsm...@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@delphi.org.nz >>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi >>> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: >>> unsubscribe >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list >> Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz >> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi >> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: >> unsubscribe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list >> Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz >> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi >> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: >> unsubscribe >> > _______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe
