Whole Tomato Software Forums
Whole Tomato Software Forums
Main Site | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Visual Assist
 Feature Requests
 static attributes, add include for symbol, and .id

You must be registered to post a reply.
Click here to register.

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format: BoldItalicizeUnderlineStrikethrough Align leftCenterAlign right Insert horizontal ruleUpload and insert imageInsert hyperlinkInsert email addressInsert codeInsert quoted textInsert listInsert Emoji
   
Message:

Forum code is on.
Html is off.

 
Check to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
peterchen Posted - Feb 13 2013 : 09:52:09 AM
Sicne I found nothing else to complain, some smalelr things I've noted over the past years:

"Move to implementation" for static initializers.

// .h
class Foo
{
   static int Value = 42;
};

the static definition only supports "Create implementation" which adds

int Foo::Value;


to the .cpp, but leaves the header unchanged.

Expected: "Move to implementation", changing the header to

static int Value;


and adding

int Foo::Value = 42;


to the .cpp

Format of includes

Right-clicking a symbol to automatically add the required header is one of the VAX killer features IMO. However, the format of the include (backslash vs. slash for path separators, quotes vs. caret for path)

I observe that you already evaluate incldues in the current file for the path separator.

1. Could you also evaluate those includes for caret vs. quote when another include in the same path is added?

2. Could you make the path separator default configurable?

3. Alternatively, could you include selected other files (e.g. stdafx.h if present) in the check for path separator, and maybe even for the quote vs. caret for specific folders?

4. Alternatively, default to carets when the file is "elsewhere" (for a community-pleasing definition of "elsewhere")

The problem is that in most cases for me, it's exactly the wrong way, I have to change quotes to carets, and backslash to slash. Any of above changes would be a big improvement for me.

Add Include with forward definitions
If the project contains a forward and a full definition, the "include <header>" often chooses the forward definition. It would be better to offer a choice of header in this case

"goto definition" IDL support

I understand that full IDL support is a bit much to ask for comparedly little benefit.

Still could one of your wizards spend maybe an hour to check what could be done?

The one feature I am truly missing and would *love* *love* *love* to see is "goto definition" for an interface being able to jump to the respective definition in the .idl file. (At the moment I get a screen-filling list of .tlh files from various #import statements in the project). I promise I won't ask for any other .idl support feature in the future.

Thanks guys, rock on!
1   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
feline Posted - Feb 13 2013 : 2:09:25 PM
Allowing Move Implementation to Source File to work on a static class member makes sense, I have put in a feature request for this:

case=72376


For controlling Add Include, you should find these FAQ entries helpful:

How to stop Add Include using relative paths
How to set the default delimiter for Add Include
How do I always get <> or "" for Add Include


How easily can you reproduce the problem with Add Include and forward declarations? A simple test here is not showing any problem with this, so it could be I need a more complex test case.


For Alt-g into an IDL file, can you help me setup a test case for this? Personally I don't really know anything about IDL files, and I don't seem to have a ready made test case on hand.

© 2023 Whole Tomato Software, LLC Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000