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.
>>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$1@is.intellij.net... >>>>> Personally, I often put the class name before a static call just to >>>>> clarify, or to differentiate between a local variable and a static >>>>> module level one. >>>>> >>>>> However, ReSharper seems to highlight these as unnecessary, and the >>>>> only option to override that is to change the "Redundant name >>>>> qualifier" warning, but that removes warnings for all redundant >>>>> qualifiers... like if I have using System; and then use >>>>> System.DBNull.Value somewhere, it removes the highlighting of System >>>>> as being redundant which I want. >>>>> >>>>> Can we have a separate "Redundant classname modifier" warning or have >>>>> I missed something somewhere? >>>>> >>>>> Dino >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Actually, I am helping, you just don't want the help that's available. There's no NEED to redundantly qualify the identifier like that, and the reason for doing so (to easily tell statics from non-statics) can be done via Resharper's additional color coding. If you want to reject my help, fine, but don't say I'm not helping.
Really? I can't seem to find that in the latest EAP fonts and colors... am I looking in the wrong place (because i'd like the coloring, and don't have the same style requirement as Dean...)
Flipside: this seems like a dial that would be nice to be able to tune, I could see a god justification for the style Dean is describing being part of a coding pratices standard.
Actually, I am helping, you just don't want the help that's available.
There's no NEED to redundantly qualify the identifier like that, and the
reason for doing so (to easily tell statics from non-statics) can be done
via Resharper's additional color coding. If you want to reject my help,
fine, but don't say I'm not helping.
"Dean Cleaver" <dean.cleaver@panties.xceptionsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:eb8b7p$qcr$1@is.intellij.net...
>
>
>>I was just saying, if you use coloring to highlight usages like this, you
>>don't NEED to redundantly and needelessly qualify the identifier with
>>"Foo". It's obvious from the color.
>>
>>
>> "Dean Cleaver" <dean.cleaver@panties.xceptionsoftware.com> wrote in
>> message news:eb0fns$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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Paul Bradshaw wrote:
Really? I can't seem to find that in the latest EAP fonts and colors...
am I looking in the wrong place (because i'd like the coloring, and
don't have the same style requirement as Dean...)
Flipside: this seems like a dial that would be nice to be able to tune,
I could see a god justification for the style Dean is describing being
part of a coding pratices standard.