cpptool-develop

[Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

    I finally added scope support for RenameTemp. It's seems to work just
fine:

{
    double x = getPrice();
    x += x * rate;
    if ( needTaxes() )
    {
        int x = x * taxeRate;
        setTaxes( x );
    }
    return x * getQuantity();
}

Is correctly refactored to (rename the first occurence of x to price):

{
  double price = getPrice();
  price += price * rate;
  if ( needTaxes() )
  {
    int x = price * taxeRate;
    setTaxes( x );
  }
  return price * getQuantity();
}

Things are really looking good...

Baptiste.
---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>
http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/

Re: [Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope

[Sven R. <rei...@ma...>]

Looks great. However, I think the code below is incorrect, if I understand 
the grammar correctly. Stroustrup says something like: The scope of a 
name starts at the point of its declaration; i.e., after the complete 
declarator and before the initializer (Stroustrup, 4.9.4, translated back 
from German). That means that in the line
>         int x = x * taxeRate;
the second x already refers to the new variable, i.e., its uninitialized 
value. So, it should be left unchanged, rather than being refactored to
>     int x = price * taxeRate;
This is just my theoretical understanding; I'll check if the compiler 
understands the standard in the same way. If this is true, it should make 
the refactoring even easier.

Sven.

-- 
Sven Reichard
Dept. of Math. Sci.
University of Delaware
rei...@ma...

Re: [Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

You're right. I checked with VC++ and the variable is indeed accessible in
the initializer. This sound plain wrong for me, but that the way it is.
Should be fairly simple to correct though.

Baptiste.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>
To: "CppTool Mailing List" <Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope


> Looks great. However, I think the code below is incorrect, if I understand
> the grammar correctly. Stroustrup says something like: The scope of a
> name starts at the point of its declaration; i.e., after the complete
> declarator and before the initializer (Stroustrup, 4.9.4, translated back
> from German). That means that in the line
> >         int x = x * taxeRate;
> the second x already refers to the new variable, i.e., its uninitialized
> value. So, it should be left unchanged, rather than being refactored to
> >     int x = price * taxeRate;
> This is just my theoretical understanding; I'll check if the compiler
> understands the standard in the same way. If this is true, it should make
> the refactoring even easier.
>
> Sven.
>
> --
> Sven Reichard
> Dept. of Math. Sci.
> University of Delaware
> rei...@ma...

Re: [Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

It's fixed.

Baptiste.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Baptiste Lepilleur" <gai...@fr...>
To: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>; "CppTool Mailing List"
<Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope


> You're right. I checked with VC++ and the variable is indeed accessible in
> the initializer. This sound plain wrong for me, but that the way it is.
> Should be fairly simple to correct though.
>
> Baptiste.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>
> To: "CppTool Mailing List" <Cpp...@li...>
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] RenameTemp now support scope
>
>
> > Looks great. However, I think the code below is incorrect, if I
understand
> > the grammar correctly. Stroustrup says something like: The scope of a
> > name starts at the point of its declaration; i.e., after the complete
> > declarator and before the initializer (Stroustrup, 4.9.4, translated
back
> > from German). That means that in the line
> > >         int x = x * taxeRate;
> > the second x already refers to the new variable, i.e., its uninitialized
> > value. So, it should be left unchanged, rather than being refactored to
> > >     int x = price * taxeRate;
> > This is just my theoretical understanding; I'll check if the compiler
> > understands the standard in the same way. If this is true, it should
make
> > the refactoring even easier.
> >
> > Sven.
> >
> > --
> > Sven Reichard
> > Dept. of Math. Sci.
> > University of Delaware
> > rei...@ma...
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Cpptool-develop mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpptool-develop
>
>