| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
swinefeaster
Tomato Guru
310 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 06 2006 : 5:44:20 PM
|
Is there any autotext entry that I can use to change an Extract Method result such as:
void DoSomething( CSomeObject &s );
To look like:
void DoSomething(CSomeObject& s);
?
Thanks!
|
|
|
rhummer
Tomato Guru
USA
527 Posts |
Posted - Sep 06 2006 : 5:47:57 PM
|
Yes there is an auto text for extract method, "Refactor Extract Method"
Though, you cannot edit the placement of the '&' character.
|
Tools Engineer - Raven Software
VS2005 SP2/VS2008 SP1 - VAX <LATEST> - Win 7 x64
|
Edited by - rhummer on Sep 06 2006 5:48:29 PM |
 |
|
|
swinefeaster
Tomato Guru
310 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2006 : 7:03:20 PM
|
| :( |
|
|
|
swinefeaster
Tomato Guru
310 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2006 : 7:04:22 PM
|
| then why does it default to old-style? |
|
|
|
rhummer
Tomato Guru
USA
527 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2006 : 8:08:59 PM
|
I'm not sure what you mean.
The parameter list is generated from the $ParameterList$ autotext keyword. Which can't be changed. |
Tools Engineer - Raven Software
VS2005 SP2/VS2008 SP1 - VAX <LATEST> - Win 7 x64
|
|
|
|
swinefeaster
Tomato Guru
310 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2006 : 12:00:41 PM
|
no i mean this:
void Foo(int *blah);
is old-school. the more modern coding style is:
void Foo(int* blah);
same with references. if you don't wanna let us change the style, then change it to the first style... ;) |
|
|
|
feline
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
19021 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2006 : 3:20:33 PM
|
i can see half the forum agreeing with you, and half the forum disagreeing with you.
the answer i recall reading was about defining new variables, and said to prefer:
int *foo, bar;
to:
int* foo, bar;
since the first makes it more clear that only foo will be a pointer. i have always preferred the first style, and the point about clarity makes sense to me.
however i try to avoid imposing my views on others, since then we would spend all of our time arguing and getting no work done 
before you ask for a simple check box option, what do i say to the person who posts and wants the format:
void Foo(int * blah);
this is why we try to stay away from code formatting, since you end up with hundreds of options, since that is the only way to keep everyone happy. |
zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness |
|
|
|
rhummer
Tomato Guru
USA
527 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2006 : 3:24:01 PM
|
I agree with feline, getting into formatting options is a big can of worms to try and open.
I personally would scream murder if things were formated like:
int* foo;
I prefer:
int *foo; |
Tools Engineer - Raven Software
VS2005 SP2/VS2008 SP1 - VAX <LATEST> - Win 7 x64
|
Edited by - rhummer on Sep 09 2006 3:24:55 PM |
|
|
|
jpizzi
Tomato Guru
USA
642 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2006 : 6:28:28 PM
|
Personally, I prefer
int* foo;
I avoid the confusion by never declaring two variables with the same statement.
I vote that we leave code formatting to programs like GC.
However, why is it that we include the "decorations" within the autotext keyword instead of separately? Maybe instead of an option, a different autotext keyword? Something like, $ParameterListSpace$ ?? |
Joe Pizzi |
|
|
|
feline
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
19021 Posts |
Posted - Sep 10 2006 : 5:55:23 PM
|
this is an educated guess, but there is a single keyword for ease. this gives everyone a reasonable degree of control over the formatting, while avoiding problems with functions like:
void FelineDoesThis(const QValueList<drugMapping, QPair<int, QString> > &listCheck, const QString &drugName);
virtual void insertItem(const QString &, const QString &) { ; } // a bit of a hack, but it works
now i know that you can separate each parameter into "type" and "name", but if we want to get picky about control over spaces and formatting code like this opens up a can of worms, just with two lines of code. i have things like this, and worse, in my code and i hardly ever make template functions or classes!
as for GC, this is an excellent program
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcgreatcode/
but last time i tried it, it did not have enough options! there were things i wanted to do that it would not let me do. *checks* the readme file telling you how to control GC is 4,375 lines long! this is slightly off putting |
zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness |
|
|
|
swinefeaster
Tomato Guru
310 Posts |
Posted - Sep 18 2006 : 3:05:10 PM
|
so the answer is no ?
i agree that VAX shouldn't be doing code formatting of existing code, but when it adds new code, it should at least be configurable. otherwise it's just plain annoying to do refactoring, cause you have to go back and fix everything. |
|
|
|
jpizzi
Tomato Guru
USA
642 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2006 : 12:22:47 AM
|
| I'll point support to the thread and see what they say. |
Joe Pizzi |
|
|
|
Admin
Whole Tomato Software
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2006 : 12:38:09 AM
|
| swinefeaster: You make a good point and we hear you. |
|
|
|
jpizzi
Tomato Guru
USA
642 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2006 : 12:51:55 AM
|
I entered a case for this.
case=2580 |
Joe Pizzi |
|
|
|
swinefeaster
Tomato Guru
310 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2006 : 11:22:02 AM
|
| ok great thanks :) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
1534 - Formatting of Extract Method
