On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Gena wrote: > On Thursday 04 February 2010 22:59:03 John Vilburn wrote: >> I don't care much about the guard name, so if Qt Creator had a way to fix >> that in the header I would be happy with whatever format Qt used. It is >> fine to leave the renaming of files and the changing of guard names and >> #include references as an option that can be turned off for those people >> who like to do more work manually. But it is an essential option. Anything >> that can be automated, should be. > > And what about renaming all usages of the class? And don't forget about > keeping > indents (not only in source files, but also a pro-file, Makefile, > CMakeLists.txt). I just want to say I don't mind this feature, but I don't > think > it's essential.
The Rename Symbol feature of Qt Creator already handles renaming the usages of the class that are in your current Qt Creator session. My "wish list" was talking about the things that it doesn't handle. And in an earlier reply on this thread I mentioned updating the .pro file. > Also I want to say that renaming a class name is not good at all. I guess if you are writing a library, then renaming a class should not be taken lightly. But for an application, I sometimes need to rename a class, just as I sometimes need to rename a variable or function because when I first named it (a year ago) I named it poorly and renaming it makes the code easier to read and maintain. I guess I am not as good as you are at coming up with the perfect name for a variable, function, or class. The Rename Symbol is essential for those of us who make mistakes but still care about readability. John _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
