Thanks for the useful feedback!
On 08/21/2012 12:53 PM, Simon Schäfer wrote:
> Hi Ivan,Versions for 2.9 and 2.10 should be (behave) the same.
> some suggestions (I use the version for 2.10):
It is not mentioned in the documentation, InSynth's support for
> * On `val xs: Array[Int] =` there is suggested `Array apply 0` instead
polymorphic types (generics) is not yet implemented, but we plan to
The documentation should definitely be corrected to mention this. And
also it would be good if no completions are offered in such case, I presume?
> * operator names are shown as they are represented internally forI see, while the former should also work (if I am not mistaking) the
> example `$hash$hash` instead of `##`
later is a better alternative. This should be definitely fixed.
> * for case classes there is shown only a call to the ctor and not toI think that we have some limitation while searching companion objects,
> the companions apply method
could you please give a test case - or if it is not a problem opening an
issue would be even better (for this one and other suggestions also)?
> * for local/imported methods there is always shown full operatorI see, although a test case would be excellent, I think I know about
> notation `obj op param` instead of simply `op(param)`
this. It can be corrected.
> * for `val xs = Seq(Seq(1), Seq(2)); val ys: Seq[Int] = x.` there isThe discussion about polymorphic types should apply here.
> nothing suggested. For Array there are things like `Array apply 0`
> suggested (after hitting CTRL+SPACE after the dot). Same for a method
> which expects a `Seq[Int]` but a `Seq[Seq[Int]]` is found - nothing is
> * your suggestions are always shown even if they make no more sense.The idea of InSynth is to provide code snippets at a given location,
> In `obj.abc` there are things shown which do not start with `abc`
regardless of what the developer already typed - therefore it will
always try to search for all visible solutions, not just the ones that
contain the expression you already wrote.
This should definitely be considered as a feature/improvement.
Yes, definitely. And thank you very much for pointing these things out!
> Maybe some of these things should already work?
As I imagined, writing a lot of tests cannot replace testing when a
developer is actually interacting with InSynth plugin. :)
I wanted to ask you, could you please submit these suggestions as
Thank you very much again!!
> On Di 21 Aug 2012 05:31:19 CEST, Ivan Kuraj wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I've probably should have been informing you about the progress/issues
>> InSynth should be ready to go, it has a testing framework with decent
>> In case you want to give InSynth a try, you can use nightly update
>> or for Scala 2.10
>> I've submitted a pull request
>> There is a short documentation
>> As usual I would be extremely thankful for feedback -
>> I would like to thank my mentor, Iulian, for an excellent mentorship
>> Just to mentioned that the plugin is still under (constant)
>> Thanks for your time.
>> On 05/09/2012 03:10 PM, Mirco Dotta wrote:
>>> That's great news Ivan, very much looking forward to your contribution!
>>> -- Mirco
>>> On May 9, 2012, at 2:25 PM, ivan.kuraj wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I am a new member of this group and I would like to just briefly
>>>> My name is Ivan Kuraj and I am a second year computer science master
>>>> The basic ideas for the project are to implement some useful "quick
>>>> Since such implementation requires close interaction with the Scala
>>>> It is my pleasure to be a part of this group. I am looking forward to
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.