PeterPanettone

The Delphi IDE has a "Lock Toolbar" popup menu option: However, even when this option is activated then the MMX toolbars are still movable: Wouldn't it be better if the MMX toolbars would be locked too in this case?

Just for whom may be interested: The CnWizards Lock Toolbars setting is located here: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CnPack\CnWizards\CnPaletteEnhanceWizard -> LockToolbar

Please file a Quality report: https://quality.embarcadero.com/

Good! I don't think that reading this setting would be extremely difficult. But many users do use the very popular CNWIZARDS. That would be a design decision. Easy: In this case, the default setting (not locked) would come into effect. Probably yes.

Some people are addicted to traditional tools. For example, I love my old breakfast mug and wouldn't use another one.

Well, it has been confirmed now that the "Lock Toolbars" setting is from CNWIZARDS and not from the native Delphi IDE. Since the Delphi IDE seems to have no native setting to lock the toolbars (which is a standard feature in most professional toolbar applications) I would suggest that MMX reads this setting from CNWIZARDS and locks/unlocks its toolbars accordingly. What do you think?

I have filed a new feature request in the GExperts ticket-list: #58 List of all uses clause items in the whole project Please create a GExperts expert to create a merged list of all uses clause items in the whole project without duplicates. EXAMPLE: Project1 contains Unit1 and Unit2. Unit1 interface uses clause contains: Vcl.Forms, Winapi.Windows, Winapi.Messages, System.SysUtils, System.Variants, System.Classes, System.Actions, System.ImageList, hyieutils; Unit1 implementation uses clause contains: Vcl.Graphics, Vcl.Controls; Unit2 interface uses clause contains: Vcl.Forms, Vcl.Dialogs, Vcl.ExtCtrls, Vcl.ActnList, Vcl.ImgList; Unit2 implementation uses clause contains: hyieutils, iesettings, iexRulers; The list created by the expert would then look like this: Vcl.Forms, Winapi.Windows, Winapi.Messages, System.SysUtils, System.Variants, System.Classes, System.Actions, System.ImageList, Vcl.Graphics, Vcl.Controls, Vcl.Dialogs, Vcl.ExtCtrls, Vcl.ActnList, Vcl.ImgList, hyieutils, iesettings, iexRulers; Of course, it should be possible to copy the list to the clipboard, save it as text, etc.

Thanks.

I am not sure what you mean.

And how do I know that the name of this toolbar is "Navigation Toolbar"? This makes me think of the German fairytale "Rumpelstilzchen": "Oh wie gut, dass niemand weiß, dass ich Navigation Toolbar heiß!"

BTW, the caption "Lock Toolbar" is misleading. It should be "Lock Toolbars" instead because it affects all IDE toolbars.

Uwe, thank you very much, this was so annoying! But this IMO is also a good example of a bad user interface. Imagine this situation: To turn on/off the light in the living room you would have to go to the bathroom because the light switch for the living room is in the bathroom. Obviously, the better solution would be to have the light switch for the living room directly in the living room!

OK, I get it. But then, why I don't get indirect units in the same way if I select a directly used unit node in the left tree: In this case, even the "Unit Uses" tab does not show any used units in "ToolsApi".pas, although it has a uses clause:

Thomas, what do you mean by "contains all units of the project"? When I select the root node "GExpertsRS103.dproj" on the left side then only the GX_* project units are displayed in the "Unit Uses" tab on the right side: ... and no indirectly used units are displayed in this tab.

Thomas, you are right. However, this is not a merged list without duplicates in the strict sense because in the following case ComCtrls is being listed twice: uPDFViewer,ComCtrls SkinDemoUtils,ComCtrls So, the exported list is certainly useful. But for my purpose, I need to remove the duplicates.

Thomas, that is an important addition, thank you very much! You wrote in your blog: There could be cases where the fallback is not evident because the map file creation has failed for some reason while the user believes the map file is being used because he has checked that option in the Options dialog. Therefore, I feel it would be better having a checkbox directly in the Grep Search dialog: "Indirectly used units" in the "Delphi Code Content Types" group-box: This checkbox would be automatically disabled in the case no map file exists so the user is AWARE that no indirectly used units (I call them implicit units) can be searched.

Thomas, I've built #2590. But I don't see where I can display and/or export a merged list of all used units in the whole project. The list created by "Export Used Units..." is the same as before. BTW, is there somewhere a possibility to see the current version/release number in the IDE, because both the old and the new show the same version number:

I have discovered this extremely useful feature: Find previous/next occurrence (Shift + Alt + Left): This jumps to the previous or next occurrence of the current identifier and then opens this popup window: So my question is: How can I DIRECTLY open this extremely useful popup window (using the current identifier) without having to previously do the Find previous/next occurrence (Shift + Alt + Left) command? I am aware that there is the Find Identifier command which displays this Search box: However, this Find Identifier search box has the inconvenience to not automatically insert the currently selected identifier or the identifier under the cursor into the search field. Or is it possible to configure this?

I have filed a new feature suggestion for MMX: The "Find Identifier" popup window should have an "implementation" marking: This would be very useful as it would allow seeing at a glance which identifiers are above or inside the implementation section!

I like this idea.

Good point. Yes, different text and/or background colors for interface and implementation would be nice. The aim is to somehow indicate the scope of each found identifier. But then it would be logical to differentiate also between other scopes? What do you think?

Writing "implementation section" in each and every found item is useless and takes too much space on the list. One single implementation marking like in my example is enough to clearly see which found items are above the implementation keyword and which ones are below the implementation keyword, as there is maximally only ONE implementation keyword in a unit.

The "implementation" marking is much better visible and therefore more INTUITIVE.

Having such a flexible option IMO would be useful in EVERY case.

I agree for very few cases. In most cases, the directly used units would be enough. Maybe an option (a checkbox) "Include indirectly used units" would be the optimal solution?