| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Blas
New Member
4 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 06:00:33 AM
|
Hello,
I think it would be a great improve in visual assist to add some "refactor" tools (example: rename method or member would be great)
Thank you,
Blas. |
|
|
Stephen
Tomato Guru
United Kingdom
781 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 09:13:38 AM
|
| There are other tools to do this. Personally, I would prefer to see VA concentrate on what it's best at. |
Stephen Turner
ClickTracks http://www.clicktracks.com/
Winner: ClickZ's Best Web Analytics Tool 2003 & 2004
|
 |
|
|
mspa
Senior Member
Netherlands
44 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 09:27:00 AM
|
VA should concentrate on what it's best at... In my eyes this is providing programmers with an easier and more efficient way of programming. Therefore this suggestion should be taken somewhat more seriously because I also think this will add a great deal of efficiency to the programmer.
Also think of i.e. altering a class member from instance to pointer, where you need to replace all m_instance.Function() to m_pInstance->Function() etc. |
|
|
|
LarryLeonard
Tomato Guru
USA
1041 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 09:44:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mspa
VA should concentrate on what it's best at... In my eyes this is providing programmers with an easier and more efficient way of programming.
I would argue that this is way too broad a mission statement: what wouldn't come under that description? This is the 'Hey - why don't we have a space station?' school of product design. That way madness lies.
I would rather VA stick to the knitting, and let someone else do refactoring. Or they could develop a separate add-on for refactoring. |
|
|
|
Blas
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 09:46:49 AM
|
I agree with you regarding the more sofisticated refactorings, but in my opinion it wouldn't be necessary to buy a new tool for changing a method or class name.
Of course this is only my opinion... |
Edited by - Blas on Nov 23 2004 09:54:44 AM |
|
|
|
LarryLeonard
Tomato Guru
USA
1041 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 10:42:23 AM
|
Ah, but think about what a tool would have to know to *guarantee* that it changed the *correct* occurances of MyClass::MyFunction( ), including virtual functions, multiple inheritance, 'hidden' functions, functions of the same name in other classes, etc. It would just about have to be a compiler in itself.
Certainly, it would be an order of magnitude more intelligent than VAX is now, because VAX doesn't have to understand every single line of code in order to function properly. My position is that I don't want VAX compilicated to that extreme degree with a frankly totally unrelated (albeit nifty) feature.
|
|
|
|
Uniwares
Tomato Guru
Portugal
2321 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 12:20:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mspa
Also think of i.e. altering a class member from instance to pointer, where you need to replace all m_instance.Function() to m_pInstance->Function() etc.
Thats something VAX always has troubles with. Change the definition from typename* varname to typename& varname and try to use varname. It takes ages until VAX realizes that the type has changed and the .-> auto correction stops inserting the wrong operator. Usually I save, close and reopen the file when I need to make this change. [sorry for ranting, but there are some pre-historic bugs that drive me still crazy] |
|
|
|
feline
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
18942 Posts |
Posted - Nov 23 2004 : 4:58:08 PM
|
before now support have said they are not going to add refactoring to VAX, since some refactoring support is part of .NET 2005. instead the idea is that VAX will enhance what the IDE does.
i suspect this will only target C#, although refactoring for C++ would be nice  |
zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
