Comments on: Introducing ReSharper 5.0: Structural Search and Replace

By: Robbe

Robbe — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:40:35 +0000

BTW: Three nice Quickfixes from my side
1. replace obj == otherthing wich objet.Equals
2/3. Transform between var x = (type)y var x = y as type; if(x!=null)
(maybe not fully prooven to succeed)
http://pastebin.com/gXSpMpfb

By: Robbe

Robbe — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:19:39 +0000

@Joe White:
You are so right. That was a mind-bug. The way I have it, now solves the problem, however not completely.
Here I try to do something like INotifyChanged, however special to our domain.
[FunctionProperty]
public $type$ $propid$
{
get { $getstmt$ }
set { $setstmt$ }
}
—— replace by ———
[FunctionProperty(FunctionPropertyCategories.MultiChannel)]
public $type$ $prop$
{
get{ return ($type$)this.GetCurrentChannelParameterValue(”TODO”);}
set{ if (this.SetCurrentChannelParameterValue(”TODO”, value))
{ this.OnPropertyChanged(”TODO”); }}
}
——–
That works.
The downside of this is obviously the “TODO”. I did not manage to get the property identifier replaced at that spot. So “$propid$” or similar kind do not work.
@all: Does this feature consist of lets say string conversion of identifiers and types?
Can this be solved?
But anyways: Great feature - to be more documented and paved.

By: Joe White

Joe White — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:28:11 +0000

@Robbe, a couple of guesses:

1. I’m not an expert with SSR, but I’m guessing this would only match if the getter and setter both contained the *same* statements, which will never happen. Try making separate placeholders for the getter’s and setter’s dummy statements.

2. Remove the semicolon from inside your setter. A statement placeholder will already match the semicolon, so adding another one might cause it to only match if you have an extra semicolon in your setter. (”Match similar constructs” might make this a non-issue, I’m not sure. But better to say what you mean, which means leaving off the semicolon.)

By: Robbe

Robbe — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:32:59 +0000

Jou, great. So far.
I did already some useful patterns for quick-replace.
In the first impression I really needed some hints about syntax, but there’s just an editor. OK - I came across.
Now however I try to match (and reformat) a property, but I can’t get it to work. I’d love to see some hints. This is what I tried:

public $rettype$ $PropName$
{
get
{
$dummyStatements$
}

set
{
$dummyStatements$;
}
}

By: Oleg Anashkin

Oleg Anashkin — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:02:35 +0000

I have created RSRP-178923 to track “Provide more patterns in Patterns Catalog” request.

By: deerchao

deerchao — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 04:31:30 +0000

It supports C# only, not VB?

By: Jura Gorohovsky

Jura Gorohovsky — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:17:48 +0000

@Greg
Seems that at the end of the day, the patterns did not make it into the release build
We’ll publish them at the website and post a link in the blog. Stay tuned

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:10:30 +0000

I upgraded from the RC to the final release and I only have one pattern in my catalog “($t$)”. Should I have more?

By: Obfuscator

Obfuscator — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:11:28 +0000

Hi Joe,
I feel obliged to clear up the confusion. In this case ’sim-shipping’ is a Microsoft term and policy, not ours, and it stipulates shipping within 30 days of the launch of Visual Studio.
In the future, we’ll make sure to specifically mention any delays. We didn’t in this case, because our launch was indeed pretty close to being ’simultaneous’.
Again, I hope we have met your expectations and the expectations of other folks out there, and that no one has been misled.
Cheers,
Obfuscator

By: Joe White

Joe White — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:08:44 +0000

Cool. It was odd to have VS out and have no word from R# at first, but since you did ship within a few hours after VS, that no-news period turned out to be no big deal. What really threw me was you stating that “sim-ship” meant “up to 30 days later” as if you expected us to know that. That’s not what those words mean to me — if you do this “sim-shipping” again, you might want to throw in a footnote, just so people aren’t surprised if you do need to use that little bit of extra time you planned for.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to soon playing with the (hopefully more stable than the last nightly, i.e., able to actually create more than one pattern in the Pattern Catalog without them corrupting each other?) new version for real.