David Heffernan

Given that you are the only one with any code, and any ability to debug, you are best placed to investigate. My advice is to stop guessing and do some old fashioned debugging.

Well, apparently GlobalLock failed with an invalid handle. Why is that? You need to work out where Handle came from and why it is not valid.

You really want to do this in an automated way, so that you can build in a scripted fashion.

No. What was meant was that the IDE could in principle use new style RTTI to locate private declarations. But it doesn't. It still relies on old style RTTI. I see no reason to expect this to change.

Win64 anyone?

Actually, the component will be created at runtime even if its associated field is private, or indeed not existent. What happens is that the streaming framework creates the component, assigns it properties, but is unable to field a field into which to store the reference to the component.

This information is documented http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Rio/en/Delphi_Compiler_Directives_(List)_Index

Hmm. Seems like an odd way to go about it. Choosing to contribute to an open source project means making a commitment. I personally wouldn't want to do that without knowing that the project will have strong leadership and values. Making a an empty box and asking people to throw stuff in it as they please isn't at all enticing.

This is environmental. The behaviour you describe is not what I encounter. We need to understand your environment and workflow.

Doesn't look like there is any code in this repo. I'm confused.

EnsureRange in the RTL, Math unit IIRC

Er, yes, I see it now!!

Obviously that cast is a bit pointless but it hardly matters

You can use the Delete function directly if you have a dynamic array. It may be easier to use TList<T> though. However you will need to handle the nested class instances. Probably the design of your record type is a bad choice because it makes the lifetime very hard to manage.

It's a bug and surely it's already reported. Have you searched QP yet? Obviously, if it is a bug, then you have to make that choice. I just did the search: https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-21719 although I bet there are plenty of dupes

Well, you'll have to make a choice. Have the squiggles, and accept that they are wrong, or remove the squiggles. Your call.

Disable the IDE feature and rely on the compiler?

That's inevitable in a forum. If you want rigid enforcement of on topic discussion, this is definitely the wrong place. Did you submit a feature request? Without that I see little hope for this feature being implemented.

If you named your forms well, you'd be able to see from the name which one was the main form.

I'm curious though, why aren't you naming forms? Unit4 doesn't convey very much.

In English we use "you" and "one" interchangeably. I didn't mean you personally I meant that it could be done by someone. So it would have been clearer if I had said "one could do this".

"this" is the IDE enhancement you propose

Who ever works on a program without knowing what the main form is? I mean, you could do this but would it bring significant benefit? Would it make developers more productive? I can't see it.

Without knowing what types you are using we can only guess what you are doing.

More details please. What is the error? What is TArray? I expect that it is your own type because the type defined in the RTL of that name is not an array, it's just a collection of static methods.