[Qt-creator] "new class" feature suggestions

[Erik Verbruggen]

Comments in-line..

-- Erik

On 21 apr. 2012, at 11:25, qt.dantec at free.fr wrote:

> When using the "new class" option, we have to type the base class
> information.
> 
> Unfortunately, this dialog box is modal, and when you forgot the exact
> name of the base class, you have to cancel, lookup the name, and then
> start over.
> 
> Since we have auto-completion working on class names, why not using it
> to allow completion on the base class name ?

Much requested, so you'd be a hero if you submit a patch.

> And since we would then know which file it is defined in, why not
> #including that file name in the new class headers, so that the new
> class would compile right out of the box (not the case now, except for
> base classes) ?

Same as above.

> Even better, knowing the base class, we could properly auto-fill the
> Type Information field, making creating a new class stupid errors
> prone (am I the only one to sometimes forget to add the Q_OBJECT macro
> when needed ?)

No, although purists might disagree: you do not *need* the macro if you do not define signals/slots. Then again, it is such a common gotcha that we can probably ignore the nay-sayers ;-)

> Also useful would be :
> - the automatic inclusion of a text message at the head of the new
> files, typically the usual copyright & author's message ;

See Eike's comment

> - to allow "new class" on an existing file, allowing to add the new
> class to selected file header and source, instead of helping bloat the
> number of files in a project.

Hmmm, wouldn't a snippet be better here?

> Finally, total nirvana would be to have a list of virtual methods from
> base(s) class show up and let the programmer select those that need
> re-implementation, and hence copy their prototype in the header and
> source files...

And add implementations for pure virtual methods? Yes, feel free to send a patch:-)

> Anyway, thank's for an already awesome piece of software !

Sorry if the "feel free to send a patch" sounds daft, but this is the kind of functionality where we'd love to see sommmunity involvement! If you cannot do it, please do add a feature to our bug tracker.

-- Erik