I've been wondering this same thing.
> I've been wondering this same thing.
Myself as well. I've heard references made to another forthcoming
patch, but not much else.
Want a 64-bit Delphi compiler for AMD64 / IA-32e? Vote here--
> Will this missing system.pas source given to the related D7 Pro
> licensed users ?
Does D7 Pro currently have Delphi source .PAS files?? If so, then why
would you doubt it? If not, then why would you get it?
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 18.104.22.168
> Myself as well. I've heard references made to another forthcoming
> patch, but not much else.
This patch about the persistent fields sizes (which has a public beta
right now). More than this fix and system.pas, I'm hoping that they
could address the DbRadioGroup "itemindex out of bounds" error, which
is pretty much the patch showstopper for me, and has no known
workaround short of modifying vcl source.
(btw, can anyone access QC right now? I tried to get the number of the
DbRadioGroup bug it seems it is not working.)
> just to your code, on every form you have a DBRadioGroup.
> Yikes! or not depending how many of those you have
That should work, but there are a lot of forms that would have to be
checked. Kind of the same problem as the persistent fields (you could
just go through all the forms fixing the bad sizes). But that was a
problem to begin with, now I'd be adding extra "dummy" code (with
potential to introduce new bugs) to workaround a bug introduced in a SP.
Right now I'm tending to not apply the patch and I'm glad I just
installed it in one machine to test.
> Then again, there are those who say using DB aware controls is
> a bad idea anyways. ;)
I bet those do not have legacy applications with Db aware controls to
> (btw, can anyone access QC right now? I tried to get the number of the
> DbRadioGroup bug it seems it is not working.)
It's QC#8167. Got it, but it was slow...
> > Will this missing system.pas source given to the related D7 Pro
> > licensed users ?
> Does D7 Pro currently have Delphi source .PAS files?? If so, then why
> would you doubt it? If not, then why would you get it?
D7 Pro includes the RTL/VCL source. No, the D7.1 Pro update did *not*
include the updated System.pas.
I thought so.
> No, the D7.1 Pro update did not
> include the updated System.pas.
neither did any of the other SKU's, I believe, so if they I would
assume that if they give to us, the Pro users won't be excluded.
Anyway, it was discover two weeks at today...
Borland is really speedy to give answers to customers...
How i miss Turbo Pascal and Delphi early days, when Borland be really
Borland and not a Microsoft subsidiary.
German Pablo Gentile
FWIW, by experimenting a little, I've found that you'll get correct debug
info line numbers in System.pas if you just delete the 8 extra comment lines
added to the unit header comment in the Update 1 version of System.pas.
If you do a compare with the original D7 System.pas and the D7.1 System.pas,
you'll find that the update inserted a comment about GNU GPL licence in the
header. just remove this information - 8 lines in all, and you should be
> How i miss Turbo Pascal and Delphi early days, when Borland be really
> Borland and not a Microsoft subsidiary.
Please relate some stories about the rapid turn-around for fixes on
Turbo Pascal. I was a customer since 1983, and I certainly didn't see
anything like what Borland offers now.
John Kaster, Borland Developer Relations, http://bdn.borland.com
Add a feature/Fix a bug: http://qc.borland.com
Get source: http://cc.borland.com
> German Gentile in <40ae...@newsgroups.borland.com> wrote:
>>How i miss Turbo Pascal and Delphi early days, when Borland be really
>>Borland and not a Microsoft subsidiary.
> Please relate some stories about the rapid turn-around for fixes on
> Turbo Pascal. I was a customer since 1983, and I certainly didn't see
> anything like what Borland offers now.
Off course i dont talk about that (rapid turn-around for fixes)
, i speak about identity of the company, level of service and level of
fidelity of customers.
In that times a customer of Borland feel pride of Borland. Today that
same people is buying Visual Studio... Make your own maths...
I really use to love Borland, not Inprise, and less even Microsoft.
I can enumerate many details, but that is not the point.
The point is when the QA division will fix it?
All the other things are only words.
That is the question. When?
Anybody at Borland (employers,TeamB) are turning to the question and
never give a day. Just release the file! What word you dont understand?
Apperas like a bad joke to your customers! It seems like a poor joke to me.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://delphi.weblogs.com
IB 6 versions prior to 22.214.171.124 are pre-release and may corrupt
your DBs! Open Edition users, get 126.96.36.199 from http://mers.com
I do. And I /think/ I understand you...
But times had changed. And Borland had to change too. At least that's
how I think. And old love *always* looks better when viewed through the
prism of memories...
Anyway - and after much waiting - Borland *finally* seems to be doing
the right thing. I *love* their new approach and - as a runaway child -
hope to return to their products.
I'd switch to Borland Studio (D/W32, D/.NET, C#/.NET) anytime. I'd even
persuade my boss.
> Hp Widmer wrote:
>> Will this missing system.pas source given to the related D7 Pro
>> licensed users ?
> Are you kidding???
> QA must verify if it really happens and the decide when in the next 12
> months it will release a patch including the missing files (and not
> including so many others, only GOD knows).
And there must be an Open Letter about it.
And an Open Letter explaining why the Open Letter is delayed.
Now I'm really confused. I thought the point of this
thread is that an updated System.pas was not included
with the 7.1 update. If that is the case, then how does
one compare old and new?
It seems an updated System.pas was included with the patch, but it was the
wrong one (with a comment header that was 8 lines too long). I kept the
original source folders (as I always do with updated or new versions) and
just compared the old with the new.
So was I <g>.
Ok, here's the score:
This response may be a bit late, since I just came back from vacation ....
I can't recall rapid turnarounds, but since the mid 80's, I always knew I had an
advantage using Borland products. I can't say I feel the same these days.