xsharp.eu

I had the impression that an improvement in Intellisense was also on the agenda for he Cahors version?

I installed today's version and, to be honest, the only thing I always check on a new X# version is if Intellisense improved.

I refer to

https://www.xsharp.eu/forum/public-prod ... ense#14900


"When I continue typing with the 'i' ("endi") I only get the option IF. I type <Enter>, get endIF, have to type Enter again and then I get the Endif on the next line"

This is still unchanged - should it have changed?

Dick

Dick,

Intellisense is a name for many things. One of them is code completion. That is what you are talking about, and to be more precise: especially keyword completion.

We have changed many things in intellisense, but the keyword completion (in particular the one case where you start typing and after 3 characters there is already a valid keyword (end) and where you continue typing) has not been fixed.
But for example Goto definition, Peek definition, showing XML comments for types defined in code and many more things have been improved.

Robert

Hello Robert,

Thanks for explaining. Peek definition seems to work fine indeed. And from earlier discussions I know that building in keyword completion is a hell of a job thanks to VS.

As written earlier I am (still) not in a hurry to leave VO where this all works almost flawless but I hope you don't mind me checking with every new version if keyword completion has reached VO level. At least until then I will keep using VO. It's a good excuse I think

Dick

Dick,

Actually I do mind that you keep on focusing on things that don't work like you're used to in VO.
I would welcome a more positive attitude. I prefer glasses that are half full over glasses that are half empty if you know what I mean.

Even if this would work flawlessly then you'll probably miss being able to edit just one entity over editing the whole file etc etc.

If you want to continue to work in VO that is fine with me, and I consider that a compliment for past work (after all most of the features that you like in the VO editor were added there by me) but there is no need to continue posting messages with "this does not work" and "that does not work".

Robert

Hi Dick,
VO has its repository with all dependencies so Intellisense is much easier to accomplish.
I can assure you that I'm missing the repository, specially the possibility to keep only some entities in the editor.
But IMHO it makes no sense to look back - X# has many things where it is much better than VO, and I like it really to work with it (ok, I don't like VS either, and therefore I'm using XIDE). But fortunately we have the choice of the IDE in X#, and even mixed development is possible.
Wolfgang

Hello Robert,

robert wrote:Dick,
Actually I do mind that you keep on focusing on things that don't work like you're used to in VO.

I thought reporting things which do not work as could be expected was the whole idea of a forum.....

I have often posted that I admire the support and the accomplishments of your team so it's not fair to write that I do not have a positive attitude.

Even if this would work flawlessly then you'll probably miss being able to edit just one entity over editing the whole file etc etc.

You are right in that. I currently have most code in VO, then in C#, and then X#. Having the whole mess of all methods in a .cs file in one editor strongly opposes me every time again (which would be the same in Xide of course. I'ts just what .Net is all about).

Regarding the keyword completion, the main fact is that during programming code like if-else-endif is being typed almost without looking and that's why it mainly bothers me that I have to press return twice. I really have to look on the screen if what I type (like in VO) is what actually happens in the screen.

And yes, I still consider VO a great pice of work, especially the boost it was given when you started working on it. And once again: the same goes for the X#. Even though I write what I do not like.

Dick

Hi Dick,

As an almost neutral observer (since thank God I am not working on VS integration for X# ), I think it's just no point repeating the same thing over and over again. The problem with keyword completion (when you have the "show completion list after each char" option enabled) is confirmed and logged, just not fixed yet. If you see the what's new list, there have been many intellisense improvements, this particular one is not listed though. We thought that the new build already has a lot of important improvements so it was in a very good shape to make it very worthwhile for most of the X# developers, so released it without waiting to fix even more things.

The keyword completion problem will be also fixed in one of the next builds, I just think it is not a critical one, compared to other issues that were fixed and others (in other areas of the product) that still remain to be fixed. You are also a developer that works with many people that use your products, and some surely request different improvements/fixes than others. When one of them says "Nice improvements, but could you also have a look at the one I reported for the next update?" and another says "This was supposed to fix this c**p, but I still have the same f****g bug", what would you be inclined to fix first? Well, I am obviously exaggerating, but you get the point

Hi Chris,

Chris wrote:Hi Dick,

When one of them says "Nice improvements, but could you also have a look at the one I reported for the next update?" and another says "This was supposed to fix this c**p, but I still have the same f****g bug", what would you be inclined to fix first? Well, I am obviously exaggerating, but you get the point

That's why I wrote "This is still unchanged - should it have changed?" and not "I still have the same f***g bug". It's difficult to determine if the described changes in the What's New include what Robert called the keyword completion or not. For example: Robert wrote that Peek/Goto definition have improved but that is also not something which is written in the WhatsNew (try seeking on Peek). Hence my question.

Again, I don't think I am negative, on the contrary. I explained why I consider especially the need for double return a more than average nuisance.

But you can be assured I won't post the question again. It works fine in VO after all.

Dick

Hi Dick,

OK, will let you know by pm when this problem is solved!