| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
znakeeye
Tomato Guru
379 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 10:19:19 AM
|
I have this text (cursor at end):
AfxGetApp|
If I type '.' the most reasonable is to insert "()->". That is, the parentheses should be inserted automatically. The same goes for ';' when there are no (or only default) parameters:
myString.Trim|
';' should generate "();"
Motivation
I use backspace quite frequently. That often means I unintentially (or sometimes intentionally) delete the parentheses. Similarly, I often copy function names and then have to add the parentheses manually. |
|
|
znakeeye
Tomato Guru
379 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 10:23:28 AM
|
Hmm, I believe comma (',') should also complete the parentheses:
Fool(a.Fool, b.Fool;
generates:
Fool(a.Fool(), b.Fool()); |
 |
|
|
feline
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
19022 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 3:06:33 PM
|
If you accept a listbox for AfxGetApp or these member functions "Fool" then brackets should have been inserted for you.
If I understand correctly you have deleted the brackets. How is VA to know this was by accident, and not deliberate? You might be about to add a new local variable with this name, so the code without brackets is correct. |
zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness |
|
|
|
znakeeye
Tomato Guru
379 Posts |
Posted - Jan 19 2008 : 04:59:18 AM
|
Yes, the brackets are inserted. But if I copy the function name I have to type them manually. I really don't see why the '.' shouldn't complete the parentheses too. It doesn't matter if a local variable called AfxGetApp is about to be declared -- there will never be a subsequent dot.
In Clipboard: AfxGetApp
Ctrl+V '.' should generate:
AfxGetApp()->
The same should happen for GetClientRect(), even though it requires parameters. Motivation: The parentheses should always be there. |
|
|
|
feline
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
19022 Posts |
Posted - Jan 19 2008 : 2:34:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by znakeeye
It doesn't matter if a local variable called AfxGetApp is about to be declared -- there will never be a subsequent dot.
I don't follow this. Why not? Create a variable of a complex type, and you use dot to access its members.
I see the appeal of having VA insert brackets, but I am concerned that it might cause problems. How accurate is this going to be? |
zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
'.' improvement
