Board index » delphi » Re: Feature Request

Re: Feature Request


2004-10-05 09:27:17 PM
delphi32
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Colin, it looks as if this is not really trivial
Yes - it is horrible. You end up writing bits of code like this for
every function:
function TDelphiTextServices.OnTxPropertyBitsChange(dwMask,
dwBits: DWORD): HRESULT;
asm
call SaveBX
pop ebp // bp
pop ebx // Return addr
pop eax // Self
mov ecx, [eax].fServices // ecx = fServices (correct 'this'
for cmethod
mov eax, [ecx]
call dword ptr [eax + VMTOFFSET ITextServices.OnTxPropertyBitsChange]
push ebx
call RestoreBX
ret
end;
That's why it would be nice if Delphi could support the 'cmethod'
calling convention directly!
--
Colin - using XanaNews HTTP Transport
e-mail :XXXX@XXXXX.COM
web: www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/delphi.htm
Posted with XanaNews 1.16.4.6
 
 

Re: Feature Request

Gelein,
how hard would it be to enable Interactive SQL to only execute the
highlighted section of script? I find this feature extremely useful when
I have 3 or 4 statements that I am working with, and going back and forth
in the list of previously executed scripts is far more tedious. It's
nice in those instances to see all 4 stmts on the screen, and highlight
the one you want. Don't get me wrong -- I love the ability to quickly go
back w/ Ctrl-P. But the option to execute selected text (without being
prompted) would be nice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Loren
 

Re: Feature Request

Loren Szendre writes:
Quote
how hard would it be to enable Interactive SQL to only execute the
highlighted section of script?
What would make more sense to me is an "Execute selection" item on the
context menu. That way the Execute command doesn't do two different
things depending upon whether or not you have text selected.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Borland newsgroup denizen Sergio González has a new CD of
Irish music out, and it is good: tinyurl.com/7hgfr
 

Re: Feature Request

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Loren Szendre writes:

>how hard would it be to enable Interactive SQL to only execute the
>highlighted section of script?

What would make more sense to me is an "Execute selection" item on
the context menu. That way the Execute command doesn't do two
different things depending upon whether or not you have text selected.
Good idea.
Will be implemented in the next beta release.
--
 

Re: Feature Request

Gelein,
Some other tools use F5 to execute the selected text. I usually use
Ctrl-E in IB Console instead of using the mouse. Would it make sense to
do something like F5 executes the entire screen, and F6 executes the
highlighted text?
Loren
 

Re: Feature Request

Loren Szendre writes:
Quote
Gelein,

Some other tools use F5 to execute the selected text. I usually use
Ctrl-E in IB Console instead of using the mouse. Would it make sense
to do something like F5 executes the entire screen, and F6 executes
the highlighted text?

Loren
Your wish is my command :-)
--
 

Re: Feature Request

Quote
>how hard would it be to enable Interactive SQL to only execute the
>highlighted section of script?

What would make more sense to me is an "Execute selection" item on the
context menu. That way the Execute command doesn't do two different
things depending upon whether or not you have text selected.
I figured you'd be used to that :-)
--
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - the IBConsole alternative!
Upscene Productions
www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
 

Re: Feature Request

Martijn Tonies writes:
Quote
I figured you'd be used to that :-)
Hmm... No connection, actually. Great minds think alike, I guess. :)
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 

Re: Feature Request

Would anyone other than me find it useful if the "Build with Runtime
Packages" option could be tied to a specific build configuration, so you
could have, for example, a build configuration that builds without packages
for debugging into the VCL? Seems kind of useless to be able to uncheck
"Dynamic RTL" on the Linking properties specific to a given build config
when you can only globally turn off building with runtime packages... Or is
there already a way to do this? (CB2007)
Thanks-
Mark
 

Re: Feature Request

I think that is a valid request.
Why don't you add to QC and we can vote for it.
It may even get done for the Highlander release (and thus
you may get an upgrade for it)
Rgds Pete
"Mark Guerrieri" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Would anyone other than me find it useful if the "Build
with Runtime Packages" option could be tied to a specific
build configuration, so you could have, for example, a
build configuration that builds without packages for
debugging into the VCL? Seems kind of useless to be able
to uncheck "Dynamic RTL" on the Linking properties
specific to a given build config when you can only
globally turn off building with runtime packages... Or is
there already a way to do this? (CB2007)
 

Re: Feature Request

Quote
Why don't you add to QC and we can vote for it.
It may even get done for the Highlander release (and thus you may get an
upgrade for it)
QC 48102
 

Re: Feature Request

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:57:45 -0400, "Mark Guerrieri"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
there already a way to do this? (CB2007)
of course there is, no matter what version of bcb you use. you simply
never switch on that option but rather specify needed packages/libs
right in the sources, smth like
#ifdef STATIC_BUILD
#define LIBEXT lib
#else
#define LIBEXT bpi
#endif
#define M(x) # x
#define F(x,y) M(x ## . ## y)
#define S(x,y) F(x, y)
#define L(x) lib, S(x, LIBEXT)
#pragma comment(L(vcl))
#pragma comment(L(rtl))
#pragma comment(L(vclx))
...
#undef L
#undef S
#undef F
#undef M
then you can create different build configurations and specify (or
not) STATIC_BUILD in project defines section
--
Vladimir Ulchenko aka vavan
 

Re: Feature Request

Funny you should ask, I just gave an example of how to do this in
C++Builder 2007 during my Developer Days talk
(dn.codegear.com/article/36647 - the replay probably won't be up
till later in the week). I was showing an example of how to customize
our build process (which is now based on MSBuild).
Here's how to force the 'Debug' configuration to always use static
packages and the static RTL:
- With the project open, add an "MSBuild targets file" to the project;
e.g. File | New | Other... | C++Builder Files | MSBuild targets file.
- Inside the <project>tag of the generated file, add the following,
(assuming your debug configuration is called "Debug", substitute as needed):
<PropertyGroup>
<UsePackages Condition="'$(Config)'=='Debug'">false</UsePackages>
<DynamicRTL Condition="'$(Config)'=='Debug'">false</DynamicRTL>
</PropertyGroup>
- Right-click in the .targets file in the project manager and select
"Enable". If you get an error message, either you made a mistake typing
or I did. Correct until the complaints cease. you will probably be asked
to save it as well.
Now building 'Debug' should produce the desired result. You can share
that .targets file with other projects, too.
HTH,
Mark
Mark Guerrieri writes:
Quote
Would anyone other than me find it useful if the "Build with Runtime
Packages" option could be tied to a specific build configuration, so you
could have, for example, a build configuration that builds without packages
for debugging into the VCL? Seems kind of useless to be able to uncheck
"Dynamic RTL" on the Linking properties specific to a given build config
when you can only globally turn off building with runtime packages... Or is
there already a way to do this? (CB2007)

Thanks-

Mark


 

Re: Feature Request

"vavan" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
of course there is, no matter what version of bcb you use. you
simply
never switch on that option but rather specify needed packages/libs
right in the sources, smth like
Wouldn't it just be cleaner to create a separate project files for
each configuration type, and then use a project group to compile them
all at one time? Then you don't have to manage the configuration in
the code at all.
Gambit
 

Re: Feature Request

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:25:14 -0700, "Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Wouldn't it just be cleaner to create a separate project files for
each configuration type, and then use a project group to compile them
all at one time? Then you don't have to manage the configuration in
the code at all.
I don't think so. I prefer not to get mixed up with buggy/broken
Project Manager and undocumented .bdsproj format more than I have to,
manually add all needed sources etc.
instead I better set as much options as I am able to in my own sources
and copy build configuration when needed
--
Vladimir Ulchenko aka vavan