[news.eclipse.tools.pdt] Re: Code Completion: include require

["Rik" <nomail@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vote for
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247932

and also the more simpler, but also important
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247930

:-)


"David Muir" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:a9f9dc930899ee829049b29ea9f3c2b8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I also agree that code completion should be limited to the current scope. 
>And I don't really agree with CanibaL's assertion that PHP doesn't work 
>this way. Autoloaded code is a moot point in this case, as any global 
>variables in the autoloaded file are bound to the scope of the autoloader, 
>and thus won't be included into the scope you're currently working in. 
>Limiting things to explicitly included/required files makes perfect sense, 
>and you could include a fall-back for variable includes. Eg. if you're 
>including a file explicitly, then include the variables from that file. If 
>the include is variable, then include all variables in the global scope of 
>the project.
> Rik wrote:
>
>> Yes, I said "low priority".
>> Whatever the case, is an error to have have the overall project in the 
>> code completion because it says: "Hey, you can use this and this" while 
>> is not true, is out of scope. In other words, "code completion" should be 
>> named "code I-Feel-Lucky"! :-)
>> When one try to use PDT to make big projects, the code completion showing 
>> the overall project, everywhere, make it useless to have.
>
>> Maybe include/require are not sufficient. Maybe can be decided by an 
>> option. Maybe there are other solution. In any case this is a big problem 
>> for big projects.
>
>> We are in year 2008, almost 2009. A good code completion is the basis of 
>> an editor of choice and today good editors make the difference from how 
>> many develop in one language and how many in another. Is not only a 
>> choice based on the mere language.
>> So, it is importat to take care, very much, of the code completion 
>> feature, sooner or later.
>
>
>
>> "ChanibaL" <eclipse@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio 
>> news:gb0af6$lmf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I vote against as PHP kind of doesn't work this way - you've got 
>>>autoloaders, automaticly included files, lots of magic etc. Limiting it 
>>>to the explicitly (inclu|require)ded files is not a good idea.
>>>
>>> The only thing I can think of that could be usefull is to add some kind 
>>> of directory metadata that files in this dir only have content assist 
>>> from these directories (and a list or regex to select them). I'd prefer 
>>> through that PDT developers focus on more important things first.
>
>