The point I was trying to make was that if IDEA were to rename the getter/setter, the class would no longer implement the methods of the interface it is implementing. It is very unlikely (never?) that a user would want to not implement the methods any longer but instead want to simply use a different, probably more concise, field name. If that interface/abstract-class is in a project-source path (i.e. is part of the project that is compiled), than it would be nifty if IDEA _did_ ask to rename the getter and setter *AND* also do the same for the interface/abstract-class (and perhaps for other implementors/subclasses) as well.
~ David Smiley > From: "Eugene Zhuravlev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Eap-list] Rename sometimes shouldn't rename get/set'er > Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:15:00 +0300 > Hi David, > > Sorry if I misunderstood you, but why IDEA should not ask to rename > getter/setter if you still are going to rename the field? Could you please > clarify your point? > > Best regards, > Eugene Zhuravlev > JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software, http://www.intellij.com/ > "Develop with pleasure!" _______________________________________________ Eap-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list
