On Apr 02, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Terry Ford wrote:
> This is pure speculation on my part, but wasn't there a comment at
> one time that one of the eventual goals of RS to permit some form of
> access to those "_" hidden methods in certain events built-in to RB?
> I may be totally misunderstanding this as I am going from memory and,
> at my age (60), I am beginning to wonder about it. :)
There are internal methods that start with a _ but that's not
"special". Those have existed in a number of versions for some time.
They are a standard part of RB and the framework. There may be some
plan to expose them to us or not but that's quite different.
Some people happened to find those special methods and used them
against REAL's advice.
And some also happened t find that prefixing a method with a _ made
it "hide" from the autocomplete.
The reasons for doing this varied but there is a need for something
called "friend" functions and classes and this sort of served that
purpose.
> When I suggested a different "in-house" version I was imagining how
> RS engineers would step through these methods when debugging Rb.
I'd assume they can but they're not "special" in any other respect.
Kind of like me having code in an encrypted module that I can step
through but you can't.
I believe it's special in that regard.
For a while the version of RB being used to create RB was "special"
as it was not the same IDE as we had.
REAL was not using the same version of RB that we used so they did
not see the same IDE issues we did because they did not use it day in
day out.
That was the "special" version of 5.5
Now since they're using the same IDE maybe IDE bugs will get fixed
quicker
Obviously they'll have different frameworks as they work on them but
those should be incremental improvements to existing ones so bugs we
see today they should as well.
> Nonetheless, it is very comforting to know that the goal of
> developing RB with the previous release is a very reassuring sign.
It certainly makes a statement about REAL's confidence in their own
product and it's capabilities.
For a long time (up to 5.5) the exchange was like
Q : Isn't your development tool capable of writing just about
anything I want ?
A : Of course !
Q : So do you use REALbasic to write REALbasic ?
A : ummmm ..... we write it in C++
Then it turned into (2005 - 2006)
Q : Isn't your development tool capable of writing just about
anything I want ?
A : Of course !
Q : So do you use REALbasic to write REALbasic ?
A : Yes
Q : Which version do you use ?
A : A "special" version of 5.5
Q : Why not the current version that you sell me ?
Now its
Q : Isn't your development tool capable of writing just about
anything I want ?
A : Of course !
Q : So do you use REALbasic to write REALbasic ?
A : Yes
Q : Which version do you use ?
A : The same version you can buy
This is good and also a part of one of the ISO 900 certifications.
It's a good thing and I'm damned glad to see this happen.
Quite honestly I think it's a BIG DEAL
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
