Whole Tomato Software Forums
Whole Tomato Software Forums
Main Site | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
User name:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your password?

 All Forums
 Visual Assist
 Technical Support
 Excellent support and new C++ queries
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

jon12345
New Member

6 Posts

Posted - Sep 21 2006 :  02:39:53 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Firstly I'd like to say thanks to Wholetomato and Sean for fixing the previous bug so quickly.

I have another possible issue to do with macros. Here is how I think it can be reproduced.

1) Place the following in a header file which is outside of the solution that is currently loaded:
#define TEST static void foo();

2) #include that header in a CPP file in the current solution.

3) In the CPP file, insert the following code:
struct MyClass
{
TEST
};

4) When you try to use "MyClass::", Intellisense does not suggest foo() as a possible option.

5) Intellisense works as it should if the macro is in the CPP.

--------------

The second issue has to do with static functions. For example, if a struct has:

struct MyStruct
{
static void foo();
void bar();
};

and the user types "MyStruct::", both foo() and bar() are suggested, even though foo() is the only valid option.

Additionally, if the user types "MyStruct xyz; xyz.", both foo() and bar() are suggested, even though arguably statics shouldn't really be called from an object instance.

Thanks

sean
Whole Tomato Software

USA
2817 Posts

Posted - Sep 22 2006 :  04:40:26 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am seeing a problem similar to the first - if I modify an external header in a separate editor before I open the IDE, the change is not picked up by VA. Once I edit the file in the IDE, VA suggests foo() for MyClass::. Is this true for you?
case=2652

The second two issues both have merit - though when something is arguable there's a can of worms waiting to be opened.

Edited by - sean on Sep 22 2006 04:40:58 AM
Go to Top of Page

jon12345
New Member

6 Posts

Posted - Sep 22 2006 :  07:55:37 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes, I think you have reproduced the first problem correctly.

Regarding the second issue, I think correcting the first part would be a definite improvement to Visual Assist, as Intellisense is suggesting options that won't compile. Can I suggest this as a feature request?

With regard to the second part, I think most people would agree that statics shouldn't be called from object instances. For example, C# disallows it. (A checkbox in Visual Assist options could always allow it if anyone disagreed.)
Go to Top of Page

sean
Whole Tomato Software

USA
2817 Posts

Posted - Sep 24 2006 :  8:56:05 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
second issue first part: case=2685
second issue second part: case=2686
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
© 2023 Whole Tomato Software, LLC Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000