Editfields that update each other

I've been creating a number of EditFields lately where the TextChange event of each updates all the others.

I pretty soon got fed up with wrapping every bit of update code in "alreadyUpdating" flags, so I decided to create a simple EditField subclass with a Changed event that only fires if the EditField has the focus.

As I thought this might be useful for others, I've put a sample project on my website. it uses the subclass to allow entry of hex, binary or decimal numbers, while the two other fields are updated.

I've also added the source to the SVN repository at Google Code.

Open Source projects on Google Code

I went through a patch when I tried to answer quite a number of questions on the forums and one or two on the NUG.

Whenever I post code, I always try to test that it at least compiles.

Many of the test projects I used ended up on a website that is alas no more.

I am now in the process of moving some of those snippets to an opensource project on Google Code so that they don't just go missing.

There's nothing very startling and much of it is incomplete but some of it may prove of use to someone eventually.

The first class I ever wrote in RB was an attempt at a faster string. You can see it converted to Vesrion Control Format at Google Code.

Telling the truth

We all know that REAL Software can't be bothered to document REALbasic properly, so it comes as no surprise that I can find no reference in the docs to the pairs class, the only new feature RS is advertising for 2008r2.

Of course, Aaron has stepped in and documented this on his blog so it's no great hardship for me personally, as I check his blog most days.

What does come as a bit more of a surprise is that, even now, the RS website is claiming

Windows: Unlike most other Windows development tools, REALbasic generates self-contained executables which are not dependent on external dlls or pre-installed frameworks. The single .exe file produced by the REALbasic compiler is all you need to distribute to you customers.

This has been mentioned on the forums, I've PM'd members of RS staff about it hours ago, I've cleared every browser cache in sight and connected via different ISPs. It's still there.

Does the U.S.A. have no laws about false advertising? In a litigious society like the U.S. are people actually putting up with this sort of thing?

The single executable is a central claim about the way that RB can be deployed and should have been removed from the website as soon as RS realised they might be going to change it.

Of course there will be changes to how RB works over time but anyone who has bought or renewed RB recently could be forgiven for feeling they have been badly misled.

It's a real shame because 2008r2 seems to be a really nice release. Why doe RB's documentation and advertising so often end up wrecking the positive feel we would otherwise get?