| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmitchell
Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 4
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Here is something else I've noticed. It's a problem with syntax highlighting.
| Code: | struct point {
point() : x(), y() { } // x, y are highlighted
point(int x, int y) : x(x), y(y) { } // no highlighting!
int x, y;
}; |
What gives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vladimir Voskresensky - O
Posted via mailing list.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: Your wishes for next release of CND |
|
|
Can you file a bug, please?
Thanks!
Vladimir.
dmitchell wrote:
| Quote: | Here is something else I've noticed. It's a problem with syntax highlighting.
Code:
struct point {
point() : x(), y() { } // x, y are highlighted
point(int x, int y) : x(x), y(y) { } // no highlighting!
int x, y;
};
What gives?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leonid Lenyashin
Posted via mailing list.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:48 pm Post subject: Your wishes for next release of CND |
|
|
It's just bug, can you please file it?
dmitchell wrote:
| Quote: | Here is something else I've noticed. It's a problem with syntax highlighting.
Code:
struct point {
point() : x(), y() { } // x, y are highlighted
point(int x, int y) : x(x), y(y) { } // no highlighting!
int x, y;
};
What gives?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giuseppe.Busi
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Posts: 5
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi CND developers,
my whishes for new release is a better support for not supported compilers, like the Microchip MPLABC30 (that is a "dialet" of GNU GCC).
Thank you.
Reguards,
Giuseppe Busi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Separate formatting for C++ headers and source files is more trouble for users than it's worth, and templates make the distinction largely meaningless anyway--all the code goes into the header, so you don't want different formatting anyway. I would scrap this feature entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codetale
Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More syntax colorize
| Code: |
namespace MyNS {
class Foo {
private:
int myInt;
public:
void test(int arg);
}
}
void Foo::test(int arg){
Foo localvar = Foo();
}
|
namespace MyNS and Class "Foo" are colorize as Identifier, it should have its own color.
arguments (arg) and local variable (localvar) should also have its own color.
thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paulo Rog
Posted via mailing list.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: Your wishes for next release of CND |
|
|
Also, it would be very nice if there was a run property sheet for library projects. I think JNI is a good example to illustrate the problem.
It is way easier to specify the java executable along with it's parameters and run directory in a run dialog and just launch is within a debugger context than attaching the debugger later, specially if you are investigating a segfault/access violation issue or debugging initialization code.
Regards,
Paulo
On 13/11/10 14:42, codetale wrote: | Quote: | | Quote: | More syntax colorize
Code:
namespace MyNS {
class Foo {
private:
int myInt;
public:
void test(int arg);
}
}
void Foo::test(int arg){
Foo localvar = Foo();
}
namespace MyNS and Class "Foo" are colorize as Identifier, it should have its own color.
arguments (arg) and local variable (localvar) should also have its own color.
thank you.
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tang
Joined: 18 Dec 2010
Posts: 1
Location: US
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: Add method/members to class |
|
|
It seems that the following proposed functions haven't been added to Netbeans C++ yet. It would save a lot of copy-paste time for us if we can have such a feature. Thanks.
https://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=139787#c1
------- Comment #1 From obucinac 2008-07-12 18:30:30 -------
The following functions would handy too:
Add method:
Ask user for method name, return type, parameters and create method declaration
in .h and definition in .cpp file
Add property:
Ask user for property name and type and create private field and get/set
methods declarations in .h and basic get/set
methods bodies in .cpp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pelz
Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 162
Location: Magyarország
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1) I need any setup possibility for the default source directory of a new C/C++ project. If I create a new project I must delete always the created main.cpp file, and I must create a new one in the "src" folder.
2) If I work with a Qt project and I create a new QtForm into the "Resource Files", the NetBeans creates the source files too (by "Create C++ wrapper class"). It is very nice, but it could be good, when the NB could pack them to the right categories. The ".cpp" file must be in "Source Files" and the ".h" files must be in "Header Files". Not in "Resource Files"!
3) It is similar wish as the 2). If I create a new C++ class. The NB must pack the ".cpp" file into "Source Files" and the ".h" files into "Header Files". Not in the same category! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pelz
Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 162
Location: Magyarország
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi dmitchell!
| Quote: | struct point {
point() : x(), y() { } // x, y are highlighted
point(int x, int y) : x(x), y(y) { } // no highlighting!
int x, y;
}; |
It is no highlighting because the local variables have same names as the struct properties. The highlighter can not decide which is which.
The right code :
| Code: | struct point {
point() : x(), y() { }
point(int _x, int _y) : x(_x), y(_y) { }
int x, y;
}; |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rmartins
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: Support Clang+LLVM |
|
|
Hi,
I think the support brought my clang/llvm tool-chain would greatly improve the
performance + accuracy of CND's parser, specially on templates. Given that it
was built to be tightly binded to IDE's, supporting it shouldn't be a total
nightmare;)
http://clang.llvm.org/
IZ#: http://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194166
Thanks!
Rolando |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlls
Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes, i agree: integration with clang should improve code analysis (this is why llvm project created clang instead of trying to integrate with gcc in the first place)
i hope this get serious consideration |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soldatov
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| charlls wrote: | yes, i agree: integration with clang should improve code analysis (this is why llvm project created clang instead of trying to integrate with gcc in the first place)
i hope this get serious consideration |
Can clang (llvm 2.x) work on Solaris? I see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4360 only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlls
Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
As long as all code analysis are modular, you could gracefully downgrade to the current implementation on OSes where clang/llvm is not yet supported. I haven't used Solaris in about a decade ago (during my molecular dynamics thesis, with a pretty hefty, at the time, Sparc machine), however it sounds like it sorely needs an updated gcc?
On a second thought, this bug makes it sound like they need gcc only to bootstrap the compiler, and once they do this, they should be ok right? (clang has been self-hosting on most platforms for a while now) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
