| Re: removing objects from a container [message #48998 is a reply to message #48997] |
Sat, 10 June 2006 19:12   |
![Karl[1] is currently offline](theme/default/images/xoffline.png.pagespeed.ic.XRkd1fkXye.png "Karl[1] is currently offline")
Karl[1]
Messages: 79
Registered: October 2005
|
Member |
|
|
Robbie wrote:
> Indeed, this problem had caused me much grief and frustration in the
> past. I posted a bug report to ITT that a consequence of PARENT being
> null is that IDLgrROIGroup::GetCTM() will not return the affine
> transform with respect to the root scene. This meant that my code which
> deals with converting mouse clicks to atom coordinates has a special
> case for IDLgrROIGroup (and IDLgrColorbar). The same code must now also
> detect IDL 6.3 or above to account for the new behaviour.
Yes, you were the one who reported the original bug, I think, and we
fixed it for IDL 6.3.
This is a slight change in subject from the Remove method discussion
because you're bringing up the issue of the PARENT property.
It is pretty hard to fix a bug while maintaining
backwards-compatibility, because we're purposely fixing the previous
bad behavior by changing it.
I don't know how your special case code works, but one option may be to
simply leave it in place and it may work the same with the 6.3 bug fix
in place. Other options include checking the PARENT property for NULL
and taking different directions based on that, or implementing an IDL
version check.
Bugs happen and we do our best to fix them. While we'd like IDL
applications to be free of version-specific paths and workarounds, the
reality is otherwise, but we strive to keep it to a minimum.
> So, yes! I'm definately getting different behaviour in IDL 6.3. The
> curious thing is that the fix was applied *after* IDL 6.3 Beta and
> isn't documented anywhere I could see. Am I playing with fire here?
I don't think so. We do fix bugs after Beta. Otherwise, there
wouldn't be much point to a Beta program, right? :-) I am, however,
not certain why the fix didn't make it into the release notes or why it
didn't otherwise get communicated. All I can do is apologize for that
and point out that you'd have to take the same steps to adapt your
application to the fix anyway, even if there had been an entry in the
release notes about the fix. So, except for the communications
problem, you should be in better spot by getting the fix you requested.
Karl
(ittvis)
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
