Automatic Getter & Setters settings
I was wondering if there is anywhere where I can set the Generate Getters and Setters options. All of my member variables start with "_" so when I ask it to generate the methods I'd like it to ignore that.
Also, is there a way to change the argument name? I usually just use newValue, but when I generate it uses the name of the variable, and then specifies this._whatever.
For example, if I have a class with a variable int size and I autogenerate getters and setters, I'd like to to create methods getSize() and setSize(int newValue) instead of getsize() and set_size(int _size)
Thank you.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Hello Stephen,
You need to specify that in your Code Style Settings. Then the "Generate
Getter/Setter" feature will honor this.
No, this isn't possible to configure in the current version./
--
Dmitry Jemerov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com/
"Develop with Pleasure!"
I am not sure which one is more evil, putting "m_", "_", or "a", before all your member variables. They are all equally worthless and makes the code hard to read IMHO. (I had a manager that used to do this, drove me freaking crazy!)
Anyway, if you insist on such a horrible code style you probably want to go to Settings->Global Code Style->Code Generation Tab, should be able to set it to ignore the prefixes. (This is what my manager used to do and it worked fine).
Thank you, that works fine.
Well, actually it's what my boss has asked of me, and I don't really mind one way or the other. I'll keep your objection in mind, though, and see what others have to say.
Well my post was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek than it actually reads...it sounded that way in my head...just didn't come out that way in a forum post...hah!
Although I do think prefixing member variables with "m_", "_", or "a" is pure evil :) There are plenty of people that disagree with me:
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/malcolmdavis/archive/2004/08/class_variable.html
I agree those sorts of prefixes are nasty, but unfortunately I'm forced to
use them as part of our codestyle. What really kills me is having to type
'm_' in many cases before code completion even starts to become useful :(
>> What really kills me is having to type
'm_' in many cases before code completion even starts to become useful :(
Besides cluttering the code and making it hard to read, rendering code completion difficult to use is really my biggest complaint against prefixing member variables. So with "m_" it is three keystrokes before code completion becomes useful (m-shift-underscore). Very annoying...
Funny I feel the other way round (though I only use a single "_").
It makes completion faster and more useful, because after typing "_" I get only member variable as completion suggestions.
Michael Parmeley wrote:
>>> What really kills me is having to type
I do exactly the same. It also means you don't have your code peppered
with 'this.' or risk writing to a local var instead of a field or vice
versa.
N.
Stephen Friedrich wrote:
>>>> What really kills me is having to type
>> 'm_' in many cases before code completion even starts to become useful :(
>>
>> Besides cluttering the code and making it hard to read, rendering code
>> completion difficult to use is really my biggest complaint against
>> prefixing member variables. So with "m_" it is three keystrokes before
>> code completion becomes useful (m-shift-underscore). Very annoying...