[11.5.362 Pro] - Highlight Matching Names glitch

[11.5.362 Pro] - Highlight Matching Names glitch

The Highlight Matching Names still glitches sometimes. Take a look at the following video here. There's a variable declared at line 40 which is mentioned in the code two more times at lines 46 and 58. When moving the cursor into that word on line 40, its next occurrence on line 46 is highlighted but the one on line 58 is not. It seems that lines 40 and 48 are good friends because the same happens when moving the cursor to the occurrence on line 46.

What makes it puzzling is that both Click here to jump to declaration and Find Current Word Next/Prior features know these three are twins. Both do recognize that name the highlight feature mysteriously can not. FCW even highlights it, though in orange. However, it also has some issues. As you can see in the video, I triggered Find Current Word several times in both directions. It seems that it wraps around the code for Next but it does not for Prior.

By the way, where is that orange color defined in Options? I couldn't find it in Targets / Theme Colors / Default / Highlight in Editor section.

I have submitted a defect for this issue with tracking number #SA0041638. Hopefully we can look into that soon.

Just in case, if you have a table declared in script, a table variable, or CREATE TABLE DDL, the intellisense always uses definition given in the script over definition of the existing table in the database. If a temporary table is created using other SQL, like CREATE TABLE ... AS SELECT ..., or SELECT ... INTO #temp_table, then it attempts to recognize how that table may look like in ruin-time.

	SysOp wrote:
	Just in case, if you have a table declared in script, a table variable, or CREATE TABLE DDL, the intellisense always uses definition given in the script over definition of the existing table in the database. If a temporary table is created using other SQL, like CREATE TABLE ... AS SELECT ..., or SELECT ... INTO #temp_table, then it attempts to recognize how that table may look like in ruin-time.

I guess this comment was intended to be added to this post, right? Anyway, that attempt at trying to guess what the table will be at the time execution gets to a certain point could be a very useful feature if it worked properly.

By the way, that Freudian slip about ruin-time made me spit my coffee, so now you owe me a well-worn, several years old keyboard (which I intended to replace anyway). It still works, but some keys are now "stickier" than the rest.

My bad. Yes, I meant to reply in the other post. Not only that, I don't see a previous reply to the other post before that "Just in case..." the post in which a defect number was referenced.