Does anyone know of an Eclipse plug-in or method to get Eclipse to generate getter/setters on one line like this:
public String getAbc() { return abc; }
Instead of
public String getAbc() {
return abc;
}
I'm on Eclipse v. 3.2.2.
Thanks.
I don't know how to make Eclipse generate them in the format you want, but you could do a search/replace using these regular expressions after the methods are generated:
Find:
(?m)((?:public |private |protected )?[\w$]+) (get|set|is)([\w$]+)\(([\w$]+(?:\[\])? [\w$]+)?\) \{\s+(return [\w$]+;|this.[\w$]+ = [\w$]+;)\s+\}
Replace by:
$1 $2$3($4) { $5 }
This expression will transform the generated getters and setters to be one line. Don't worry about running it with a mixture of transformed and newly generated methods; it will work just fine.
I think matching generics is important as well, so the correct regexp is:
(?m)((?:public |private |protected )?[\w\<\>$]+) (get|set|is)([\w$]+)\(([\w\<\>$]+ [\w$]+)?\) \{\s+(return [\w$]+;|this.[\w$]+ = [\w$]+;)\s+\}
As a variation of the regexp replacement approach, the following reformats the whitespace so that setters are followed by a blank line, but getters are not.
Find:
(\s(?:get|is|set)\w+\([^)]*\))\s*\{\s*(?:([^=;}]+;)\s*\}\s*(\R)|([^=;}]+=[^=;}]+;)\s*\}\s*(\R))
Replace by:
$1 { $2$4 } \R$5
Results in:
int getTotal() { return total; }
void setTotal(int total) { this.total = total; }
List<String> getList() { return list; }
void setList(List<String> list) { this.list = list; }
Map.Entry<String, Integer> getEntry() { return entry; }
void setEntry(Map.Entry<String, Integer> entry) { this.entry = entry; }
It's a minor aesthetic thing, but I figured that if you're looking for an answer to this question, then you're probably (almost) as anal as me ;-)
I know my regexp conditions are not as strict as those of #Hosam, but I haven't experienced any "false positive" replacements.
Java code formatting in Eclipse does not differentiate between getters/setters and any other methods in a class. So this cannot be done by built-in eclipse formatting.
You will need either to:
run a search/replace with the aforementioned regex
get en external plugin like PMD or CheckStyle and enforce a regex rule based on previous option
You can use fast code plug-in to generate this kind of getter setters. The details are given here : http://fast-code.sourceforge.net/documentation.htm#create-new-field.
I wanted to post as a comment to the designated answer, but I don't seem to be able to.
I modified Hosam Aly's answer to work with generic and inner types of the form:
List<X>
and
Map.Entry
The revised regular expression search string is:
(?m)((?:public |private |protected )?[\w\.\<\>$]+) (get|set|is)([\w$]+)\(([\w\.\<\>$]+ [\w$]+)?\) \{\s+(return [\w\.\<\>$]+;|this.[\w$]+ = [\w$]+;)\s+\}
This regular expression allows for angle brackets and a dot in the type.
For example:
public List<String> getStringList()
and
public void setStringList(List<String> list)
and
public Map.Entry getEntry ()
And the replace string is the same as before:
$1 $2$3($4) { $5 }
Related
I have code that looks like this, that I'm trying to format
Original code:
public int doThing(int a) // -incredibly useful comment here
{
int ab = a+1;
return ab;
}
I want it to look like this
public int doThing() { // -incredibly useful comment here
int ab = a+1;
return ab;
}
If I try to turn on the Brace position -> Method Declaration -> Same line option and run the formatter, any code with a comment in the position "breaks" the formatter, and I get an output for my example that looks the same as the original code, but methods without a comment have the correct formatting (meaning the results are inconsistent).
Is it possible with the eclipse formatter to get the style I want? I'm trying to run it against a large amount of code, and would prefer not to have to fix these all manually to get a consistent brace position.
The problem here is that is not formatting but rewriting. Using File Search + regular expression + Replace could do that in bulk.
Try this regex
^(\s*(?:public|private|protected)\s+[^(]+\([^)]*\))(\s*\/\/[^/]+)\R\s*\{
On File Search ( Ctrl + H)
Hit Replace and use $1 { $2\n as replacement
Code should compile after the refactoring.
UPDATE:
Fixed regex part that represents function arguments
\([^)]*\)
Full Regex matches these cases
public int doSmthg() // coment here
{
return 1;
}
private String doSmthgElse(String arg) // coment here
{
return arg;
}
OK, what I'm trying to do is fairy complicated, but I'll try to explain.
Let's say we want (at compile-time) all derivedMembers of class someClass. Then we'd simply do :
const string[] methods = [__traits(derivedMembers,someClass)];
Now, how could we get someClass from "someClass"? (yep, its string representation).
Let me explain a bit more what I'm trying to do :
I want to create an "intermediate" function which takes a function name as an argument (along with a params array) and calls the appropriate function from a list of available static methods in a specific (predefined) set of classes. Like execute("someFunc",["one","two","three"]);.
Here's the full (test) code :
class Math {
static string noArgs(string[] s) { writeln(s); return ""; }
static string withOneArg(string[] s) { writeln(s); return ""; }
static string withTwoArgs(string[] s) { writeln(s); return ""; }
}
string cases()
{
string ret = "";
const string[] methods = [__traits(derivedMembers,Math)];
foreach (string s; methods)
{
ret ~= "case \"" ~ s ~ "\": return Math."~s~"(params);";
}
return ret;
}
string execute(string what, string[] params)
{
switch (what)
{
mixin(cases());
default: break;
}
return "";
}
The trouble with the above code is that it only looks for methods in Math. How could I change it, in an elegant D-friendly way, so that it'll go through an array of classes like [Math,String,SomethingElse] -- it doesn't have to be variable (we need it at compile-time anyway)?
UPDATE:
Tried something along the lines of :
const string[] methods = [__traits(derivedMembers,mixin("Math")];
but it complains that Cannot interpret Math at compile time.
UPDATE 2:
Also, tried using Object.factory("Math") but it's still not working. (Perhaps I'm just creating an instance of the Math class?)
Let me rewrite this to show you some cool tricks:
import std.stdio;
class Math {
static string noArgs(string[] s) { writeln(s); return ""; }
static string withOneArg(string[] s) { writeln(s); return ""; }
static string withTwoArgs(string[] s) { writeln(s); return ""; }
}
class String {
static string oneArg(string[] s) { return null; }
}
string execute(string what, string[] params) {
import std.string;
auto parts = what.split(".");
auto className = parts[0];
auto methodName = parts[1];
import std.typetuple;
switch(className) {
default: assert(0, "unknown class");
foreach(possibleClass; TypeTuple!(Math, String)) {
case possibleClass.stringof:
switch(methodName) {
default: assert(0, "unknown method");
foreach(memberName; __traits(derivedMembers, possibleClass)) {
case memberName:
return __traits(getMember, possibleClass, memberName)(params);
break;
}
}
break;
}
}
assert(0);
}
void main() {
execute("Math.withOneArg", ["cool"]);
execute("String.oneArg", ["cool"]);
}
Notice that there are no mixin expressions used at all. Instead of getting an instance of the class from a string, I just made a TypeTuple of all the classes I wanted to use. This is preferable to mixin because then it is less likely to find name classes when used in different scopes; if possibleClasses were a compile-time parameter to execute from a different module, the list of classes would still work, whereas the list of strings would see undefined identifier errors because the library module doesn't import your user module.
Another mixin I removed was the one to generate the cases. This looks insane, but is allowed in D: if you have a compile-time foreach (that is, a foreach over a built-in tuple of some sort, e.g. TypeTuple, template argument lists, the results of __traits...) you can actually put case statements inside them!
So, all you have to do is write a regular switch statement on the run time variable you want to compare against, put the foreach inside it looping over the compile-time stuff you're searching for, case that_loop_var: and boom, you're in business.
Similarly, I used __traits(getMember) rather than a mixin string to call the method. This solution will help avoid name clashes and IMO is cleaner code. It can also potentially handle overloads, if wanted (with __traits(getOverloads) instead of __traits(getMember), you can loop over each one then and match the parameter types).
Finally, nesting switches inside other case statements is allowed. If you need to break out of an outer loop or switch and don't want ambiguity, you can label loops and switches and use break label_name_here; to specify which one you want to break from. Ditto for continue with nested loops.
BTW you could also automatically generate the wrapper functions that convert string[] to other types of arguments if you dove into the std.traits stuff. I wish my book was out already, I wrote about this at some length in there and don't feel like writing it all right now but if you look at std.traits.ParameterTypeTuple and ReturnType in the same module that will get you started if you wanna try it.
Is there a quick way to replace this:
public static String ACCESSDENIED = Resources.strings.getString(Resources.ACCESS_DENIED);
with:
public stattic String getAccessDenied(){
return Resources.strings.getString(Resources.ACCESS_DENIED);
}
I need to replace all static references to getters in about 100 variables.
Use right-click --> Refactor --> Encapsulate Field... --> (new getter created), and everything is done automagically (and its a bulletproof solution).
You can also verify the results in a Preview window.
I managed to do it by using the find and replace with regex expressions.
Find: = (.+);
Replace: () { return $1; }
I'm looking for a way to filter files in an "Open" window. I'm using NetBeans IDE 6.5.
I did some research, and this is what i came up with, but for some reason it's not working.
//global variable
protected static FileFilter myfilter;
//in declaration of variables
fchoLoad.setFileFilter(myfilter);
//inside main
myfilter = .... (i actually delted this part by accident, i need to filter only .fwd files. can anybody tell me what goes here?)
If I understand it correctly, you want to create your own file chooser and be able to filter just some files (.fwd in your case). I guess this is more general Java question (not only NetBeans) and I suggest reading this tutorial
Anyway, your "myfilter" should look like this:
myfilter = new FileFilter() {
public boolean accept(File f) {
return f.getName().toLowerCase().endsWith(".fwd")
|| f.isDirectory();
}
public String getDescription() {
return "FWD Files"; //type any description you want to display
}
};
Hope that helps
One advantage of lambda expressions is that you have to evaluate a function only when you need its result.
In the following (simple) example, the text function is only evaluated when a writer is present:
public static void PrintLine(Func<string> text, TextWriter writer)
{
if (writer != null)
{
writer.WriteLine(text());
}
}
Unfortunately, this makes using the code a little bit ugly. You cannot call it with a constant or variable like
PrintLine("Some text", Console.Out);
and have to call it this way:
PrintLine(() => "Some text", Console.Out);
The compiler is not able to "infer" a parameterless function from the passed constant. Are there any plans to improve this in future versions of C# or am I missing something?
UPDATE:
I just found a dirty hack myself:
public class F<T>
{
private readonly T value;
private readonly Func<T> func;
public F(T value) { this.value = value; }
public F(Func<T> func) {this.func = func; }
public static implicit operator F<T>(T value)
{
return new F<T>(value);
}
public static implicit operator F<T>(Func<T> func)
{
return new F<T>(func);
}
public T Eval()
{
return this.func != null ? this.func() : this.value;
}
}
Now i can just define the function as:
public static void PrintLine(F<string> text, TextWriter writer)
{
if (writer != null)
{
writer.WriteLine(text.Eval());
}
}
and call it both with a function or a value.
I doubt that C# will get this feature, but D has it. What you've outlined is a suitable way to implement lazy argument evaluation in C#, and probably compiles very similarly to lazy in D, and in more pure functional languages.
All things considered, the four extra characters, plus optional white space, are not an exceptionally large price to pay for clear overload resolution and expressiveness in what is becoming a multi-paradigm strong-typed language.
The compiler is very good at inferring types, it is not good at inferring intent. One of the tricky things about all the new syntactic sugar in C# 3 is that they can lead to confusion as to what exactly the compiler does with them.
Consider your example:
() => "SomeText"
The compiler sees this and understands that you intend to create an anonymous function that takes no parameters and returns a type of System.String. This is all inferred from the lambda expression you gave it. In reality your lambda gets compiled to this:
delegate {
return "SomeText";
};
and it is a delegate to this anonymous function that you are sending to PrintLine for execution.
It has always been important in the past but now with LINQ, lambdas, iterator blocks, automatically implemented properties, among other things it is of the utmost importance to use a tool like .NET Reflector to take a look at your code after it is compiled to see what really makes those features work.
Unfortunately, the ugly syntax is all you have in C#.
The "dirty hack" from the update does not work, because it does not delay the evaluation of string parameters: they get evaluated before being passed to operator F<T>(T value).
Compare PrintLine(() => string.Join(", ", names), myWriter) to PrintLine(string.Join(", ", names), myWriter) In the first case, the strings are joined only if they are printed; in the second case, the strings are joined no matter what: only the printing is conditional. In other words, the evaluation is not lazy at all.
Well those two statements are completely different. One is defining a function, while the other is a statement. Confusing the syntax would be much trickier.
() => "SomeText" //this is a function
"SomeText" //this is a string
You could use an overload:-
public static void PrintLine(string text, TextWriter writer)
{
PrintLine(() => text, writer);
}
You could write an extension method on String to glue it in. You should be able to write "Some text".PrintLine(Console.Out); and have it do the work for you.
Oddly enough, I did some playing with lazy evaluation of lambda expressions a few weeks back and blogged about it here.
To be honest I don't fully understand your problem, but your solutions seems a tad complicated to me.
I think a problem I solved using lambda call is similar, maybe you could use it as inspiration: I want to see if a key exists in a dictionary, if not, I would need to execute a (costly) load operation.
public static class DictionaryHelper
{
public static TValue GetValueOrLambdaDefault<TKey, TValue> (this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dictionary, TKey key, Func<TValue> func)
{
if (dictionary.ContainsKey(key))
return dictionary[key];
else
return func.Invoke();
}
}
[TestClass]
public class DictionaryHelperTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void GetValueOrLambdaDefaultTest()
{
var dict = new Dictionary<int, string>();
try
{
var res1 = dict.GetValueOrLambdaDefault(1, () => LoadObject());
Assert.Fail("Exception should be thrown");
}
catch { /*Exception should be thrown*/ }
dict.Add(1, "");
try
{
var res1 = dict.GetValueOrLambdaDefault(1, () => LoadObject());
}
catch { Assert.Fail("Exception should not be thrown"); }
}
public static string LoadObject()
{
throw new Exception();
}
}