| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
legalize
Tomato Guru
USA
119 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 19 2015 : 12:10:26 PM
|
Currently it shares a template with Create Implementation. Creating and moving are not the same thing, they should not be forced into the same template.
When I create an implementation for method XXX I want to have the implementation filled out with a stub implementation that forces me to implement it or decide to implement it explicitly as empty. Something like:
throw std::runtime_error("XXX not implemented");
When I move the implementation to the source file, I just want to move the implementation, not change it.
Forcing these two operations (any two operations, really) to share the same template is a bad idea. Each refactoring that is using a template should have its own unique template. You can always initialize them to the same template contents for backwards compatibility. |
http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com |
|
|
accord
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
3287 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2015 : 4:08:17 PM
|
We are planning to use the snippet "Create From Usage Method Body" as the default method body for Create Implementation as well:
case=81644 |
 |
|
|
jwiede
Junior Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2015 : 9:49:41 PM
|
| Still can definitely see how it would be beneficial to have them use separate templates instead of sharing one. Sharing inherently limits. |
Thanks!
-John W. |
|
|
|
accord
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
3287 Posts |
Posted - Jun 28 2015 : 10:41:47 AM
|
Just to make we understand each other: both Create Implementation and Move Implementation would still use the same snippet but only Create Implementation would use "Create From Usage Method Body" as the method body, so essentially Create Implementation would use 2 snippets, while Move Implementation only one. This way, Create and Move Implementations would generate different results.
Do you still think we need different snippets? |
|
|
|
legalize
Tomato Guru
USA
119 Posts |
Posted - Jun 29 2015 : 3:07:51 PM
|
Every individual refactoring needs it's own template.
When would I want to insert 'throw std::runtime_error(...)' when moving the implementation? Answer: never.
When would I want to insert 'throw std::runtime_error(...)' when creating an implementation? Answer: always. Because this helps me to remember that I *must* decide what the implementation should be.
Because these two are sharing a template, I can't use my device for helping me to make sure that I implement methods I've created, because every time VAX moves *any* method, it inserts the create method boilerplate.
Is there some expense in creating snippets? Even if they default to the same text, *everything* that invokes changes to my code should use a unique snippet.
Also, moving methods from the header to the source keeps reformatting my methods. I really wish you would stop doing that. |
http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
accord
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
3287 Posts |
Posted - Jul 01 2015 : 05:16:54 AM
|
The plan is that only Create Implementation will use the method body snippet, but NOT Move Implementation. Currently, "Create From Usage Method Body" is used by Create From Usage and Implement Interface. The default method body is:
throw std::logic_error("The method or operation is not implemented.");
This will used by Create Implementation but NOT by Move Implementation.
The question is that would you want to use different body for Create From Usage, Implement Interface and Create Implementation? The above snippet seems to be a good fit for all of them.
Create Implementation's snippet is as below:
$SymbolType$ $SymbolContext$($ParameterList$) $MethodQualifier$
{
$end$$MethodBody$
}
Where you see $MethodBody$ is the place where Create From Usage and Implement Interface puts the method body snippet (the logic_error), but Create Implementation is not doing this, currently. So the plan is that Create Implementation will replace $MethodBody$ with the logic_error but Move Implementation will NOT do the same, since the $MethodBody$ is already given in case of Move Implementation.
Does this make sense? |
|
|
|
legalize
Tomato Guru
USA
119 Posts |
Posted - Jul 01 2015 : 10:04:33 AM
|
Why would I want to use a different body for Create from Usage, Implement Interface and Create Implementation? Because freedom is good and coupling is bad.
There isn't any good reason these different actions should be coupled to the same template. Is there some expense in creating new templates? Give the user the freedom without being a cheapskate with the templates. |
http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
accord
Whole Tomato Software
United Kingdom
3287 Posts |
Posted - Jul 02 2015 : 5:01:18 PM
|
Thank you for the explanation, I have put in a feature request for this:
case=90654 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Move Implementation to Source needs own template
