Bug 497142

Summary:

Make ability to not propose class names from a non-capital letter.

Product:

[Eclipse Project] JDT

Reporter:

Yauheniy Ratkevich <evser11>

Component:

Core

Assignee:

JDT-Core-Inbox <jdt-core-inbox>

Status:

NEW ---

QA Contact:

Severity:

enhancement

Priority:

CC:

jarthana, stephan.herrmann

Version:

4.6

Target Milestone:

---

Hardware:

OS:

Windows 10

Whiteboard:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Example	none
Example2	none

Description Yauheniy Ratkevich

2016-07-01 06:32:08 EDT

Make ability to not propose class names from a non-capital letter.
For example do not propose class with such names: "mySystemClass".


-- Configuration Details --
Product: Eclipse 4.6.0.20160613-1800 (org.eclipse.epp.package.jee.product)
Installed Features:
 org.eclipse.jdt 3.12.0.v20160606-1100

Comment 1 Stephan Herrmann

2016-07-01 13:39:38 EDT

Are you requesting this as a filter for completion (Ctrl+Space)?
If so, why should classes with such names not be referenced?
Isn't the creation of such classes the problem, not referencing?

Comment 2 Yauheniy Ratkevich

2016-07-01 14:17:33 EDT

(In reply to Stephan Herrmann from comment #1)
> Are you requesting this as a filter for completion (Ctrl+Space)?
> If so, why should classes with such names not be referenced?
> Isn't the creation of such classes the problem, not referencing?

I don't mean to forbid referencing to such classes forever, I mean just to have an ability to do it.
I'll explain: I have one project which has really lots of dependencies and lots of SYSTEM classes are starting from a lower case (not like Java convention). They are named in a such way, because they are low-level or working with some hardware or just not intended to work with them.
(see attchments).

Comment 3 Yauheniy Ratkevich

2016-07-01 14:18:41 EDT

Created attachment 262863 [details]
Example

Comment 4 Yauheniy Ratkevich

2016-07-01 14:19:00 EDT

Created attachment 262864 [details]
Example2

Comment 5 Jay Arthanareeswaran

2016-07-04 04:02:38 EDT

You have probably thought about this, if not you should explore other ways of filtering those out, perhaps they all come from particular packages so they can 'not' be proposed? Just thinking aloud.

Comment 6 Yauheniy Ratkevich

2016-07-04 04:32:17 EDT

(In reply to Jay Arthanareeswaran from comment #5)
> You have probably thought about this, if not you should explore other ways
> of filtering those out, perhaps they all come from particular packages so
> they can 'not' be proposed? Just thinking aloud.

There are many packages that contains such classes. Of course I may filter such classes just by adding filter: [a-z]*
But it's just my small proposal...

Comment 7 Yauheniy Ratkevich

2016-07-04 04:33:15 EDT

(In reply to Yauheniy Ratkevich from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jay Arthanareeswaran from comment #5)
> > You have probably thought about this, if not you should explore other ways
> > of filtering those out, perhaps they all come from particular packages so
> > they can 'not' be proposed? Just thinking aloud.
> 
> There are many packages that contains such classes. Of course I may filter
> such classes just by adding filter: [a-z]*
> But it's just my small proposal...

Here I should add 26 (a-z) filters, because Type Filter field doesn't support regexp value.