When clicking on a record variable (without member specification, for instance when declared), all lines with the record is syntax highlighted.

When clicking on a record variable with member specification, only the use of this member specification is highlighted. This is a bug-fix from version 7.1 and is OK.

But when clicking on the first part of a record variable (before the member specification), all uses of the record should be highlighted.

E.g.: When 'my_record' in line 5 is clicked, lines 5,7,8,9,and 10 are highlighted. When 'my_record.x' is clicked, lines 5, 7, and 10 are highligthed.
My request is that when 'my_record' in line 7 is clicked, the same lines are highlighted as when 'my_record' is clicked in line 5.
Only when 'x' in line 7 is clicked, should lines 5, 7, and 10 should be highlighted.

BTW, code completion does show "x" and "y" when typing "my_record."

This is by design:

• Placing the cursor on my_record.x will highlight all occurrences of my_record and my_record.x, but not my_record.y.
• Placing the cursor on my_record will highlight all occurrences of my_record, my_record.x, and my_record.y.

This seems correct for impact analysis.

I would expect that when placing cursor anywhere on the 'word' my_record would mark all instances, no matter whether my_record was followed by .x or not.

E.g. placing cursor on variable declaration my_record would highlight my_record, my_record.x, and my_record.y
But placing the cursor on the 'word' my_record in my_record.x, for instance in position 4, would act similarly.

But placing the cursor on the 'word' x in my_record.x (position 10), would highlight only my_record.x and nothing else.

I.e. the record variable is to be treated in two different ways depending on the cursor position (before or after the dot).

I hope you can understand my rather wordy explanation.

Marco, can the code completion issue be treated as a bug?

Claus, I like Marco's interpretation on highlight better. If we were to have a change, this should be an option.

Regards,
Gustavo

I can see Claus' point. With the current implementation, the only way to highlight all occurrences of my_record is to put the cursor in the variable declaration, because for record types that is usually the only place it appears without a member.

The following design would make sense to me (which I think is also what Claus suggested):

• Placing the cursor on my_record (regardless of existence of trailing period and member) will highlight all occurrences of my_record (regardless of existence of, and without highlighting any trailing period and member).
• Placing the cursor on the ".member" part of a record will highlight the complete "my_record.member", all occurrences thereof, and also all occurrences of my_record where it is used without a trailing period and member (for impact analysis).

But I'm sure I can survive with the current design as well

I agree 100% with Worker.

Also please note that the current implementation has a little bug:


If you click at line 7 then lines 5, 7 and 10 are highlighted. OK.
If you click after that at the line 7 then nothing chanches.
Should be: highlight of lines 5, 7 .. 10.

[quote]If you click at line 7 then lines 5, 7 and 10 are highlighted. OK.
If you click after that at the line 7 then nothing chanches.
Should be: highlight of lines 5, 7 .. 10.[/quote]
I'm not sure I understand. What exactly is the bug?

Excuse me, a little mistake.
Right version:
If you click at line 7 then lines 5, 7 and 10 are highlighted. OK.
If you click after that at the line 75 then nothing chanches.
Should be: highlight of lines 5, 7 .. 10.