2 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Paul,

This will be my last reply to you on the subject.

You have not given me a work around. You've given me a way to change the
colour. I don't care about the colour.

I have a choice - I either change the companies coding standards such that
prefixing with the static class name is not required unless there is a
conflict with a local varaible, or I accept the fact that I have 2 options
for resharper:

1. Have it warn me about redundant namespace prefixing, but also warn me
about redundant static class prefixing so I will get more warnings than I
want.

2. Not have it warn me about either, so I get fewer warnings than I want.
And given I really want the redundant namespace prefix warning, this is not
an option.

So I either change the coding standards, or I put up with the extra
warnings.

Do you see now how your suggestion simply does not do anything at all for my
problem?

Dino


"Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@advsol.com> wrote in message
news:ebd2n8$4lj$1@is.intellij.net...

Well, given that what you want is unlikely in the near future, I've given
you a possible work-around. No need to get all testy.

>

You can sit and whine and be annoyed if you want to.

>

But we can't always get what we want. And if that's the case, you have
another option.

>
>

"Dean Cleaver" <dean.cleaver@panties.xceptionsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:ebbg9g$80n$1@is.intellij.net...

>> Paul,
>>
>> The reason you are not helping is I WANT TO QUALIFY IT.
>>
>> That is my coding style.
>>
>> No discussion involved.
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>> Have you listened yet???
>>
>> It is just like you don't need this.member either, however I WANT TO DO
>> THAT!
>>
>> ReSharper allows me to remove that from the warnings list, however it
>> does not appear to allow me to remove the Static Qualifier from the
>> warnings list, and I want to. I don't care about colouring it, or that is
>> is redundant, I CARE that I DO NO WANT A WARNING ABOUT IT!
>>
>> Dino
>>
>> "Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@advsol.com> wrote in message
>> news:ebabt7$ge2$1@is.intellij.net...
>>> Actually, I am helping, you just don't want the help that's available.
>>> There's no NEED to redundantly qualify the identifier like that, and the
>>> reason for doing so (to easily tell statics from non-statics) can be
>>> done via Resharper's additional color coding. If you want to reject my
>>> help, fine, but don't say I'm not helping.
>>>
>>> "Dean Cleaver" <dean.cleaver@panties.xceptionsoftware.com> wrote in
>>> message news:eb8b7p$qcr$1@is.intellij.net...
>>>> But I WANT to redundantly qualify the static call with Foo, but I don't
>>>> want it to be a warning!
>>>>
>>>> Paul - please - you are not helping.
>>>>
>>>> "Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@advsol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eb7n45$6qb$1@is.intellij.net...
>>>>>I was just saying, if you use coloring to highlight usages like this,
>>>>>you don't NEED to redundantly and needelessly qualify the identifier
>>>>>with "Foo". It's obvious from the color.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dean Cleaver" <dean.cleaver@panties.xceptionsoftware.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:eb0fns$bl7$1@is.intellij.net...
>>>>>> Perhaps I didn't explain it well...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> using System;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public class Foo
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> public static int Bar()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public static void Test()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> System.Int32 test = Foo.Bar(); // THIS LINE
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On that line, it highlights System and Foo as being redundant as a
>>>>>> warning. I want the warning about System, but not the warning about
>>>>>> Foo - I often prefer to explicitely reference the class when making
>>>>>> static calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@advsol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eavq2a$jv8$1@is.intellij.net...
>>>>>>> Have you changed the syntax coloring for static members? You could
>>>>>>> use THAT as an indicator...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dean Cleaver" <dean.cleaver@panties.xceptionsoftware.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:eautof$71t$1@is.intellij.net...
>>>>>>>> Personally, I often put the class name before a static call just to
>>>>>>>> clarify, or to differentiate between a local variable and a static
>>>>>>>> module level one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, ReSharper seems to highlight these as unnecessary, and the
>>>>>>>> only option to override that is to change the "Redundant name
>>>>>>>> qualifier" warning, but that removes warnings for all redundant
>>>>>>>> qualifiers... like if I have using System; and then use
>>>>>>>> System.DBNull.Value somewhere, it removes the highlighting of
>>>>>>>> System as being redundant which I want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can we have a separate "Redundant classname modifier" warning or
>>>>>>>> have I missed something somewhere?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>



0

Please sign in to leave a comment.