Me, me, me [bug ref 3420]

[Dave]

On 17 Nov 2006, at 00:19, Bernard Devlin wrote:

> >>
> The thing is that depending on the context "me" is evaluated
> differently, so all the different tests etc. don't really count for
> much, except that they evaluate ok in *that* context or they don't.
> The tests you did are just red herrings since they change the context
> of how "me" is evaluated.
> <<
>
> I don't think my tests change the context at all.  I was looking at  
> what the value of "me" was inside the handlers you put forward.   
> And I pointed out that there were further strange factors involved  
> here.  Those factors might well help us to find out why this  
> strange behaviour occurs.

The context is dependent on the compiled TranScript statements that  
drive the engine and how/where the shareText property is interpreted/ 
acted upon.

>
> You have shown no interest in investigating this bug.

  I spent at least a week on this problem back in Feb/Mar and so did  
a lot of other professional RunRev's on this this list.

> I was looking to find out more information so that it could be  
> added to a bug report in order that this bug might be fixed.  You  
> have not logged this as bug,

Richard has already logged it as you have pointed out.

> not voted for it when it was logged as a bug,

How do you know that?

> not answered when people have asked if it was bugzilla-ed, and not  
> shown any  interest in investigating further what is happening

How do you suggest I "investigate further" what is happening??


> , yet you are the one who brought it up again to bolster your  
> allegations about how fundamentally buggy Rev is.

No, I brought it up because I wanted to inform people that this  
problem existed and I wanted to see if anyone had had further  
thoughts on it and also because since the topic of a bug-fix release  
came up and it seems that RunRev is committed to doing just that and  
I have been asking for that for ages.

There are lots of other bugs too, especially in the IDE. I would like  
them to be fixed. That's it.

>   I find it ironic that someone claims that he is not buying  
> updates to Rev and cannot 'sell' Rev to other people because of  
> alleged bugs, yet that same person can't be bothered to make use of  
> the bug-squashing system, and can't be bothered to further  
> investigate bugs that are supposedly causing him such fundamental  
> problems.

Just look at the dates that the bugs were reported and look at the  
number of "enhancements" that have been added.

I just wish you'd stop getting your knickers in such a twist, it does  
no one any good.

All the Best
Dave