On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:17:42 +0100, spir <
denis.spir@free.fr> wrote:
>> > >-3- I would add a "replace all in current scope" function that I
>> > >dream of for years already ;-) where 'scope' means closest
>> > >nesting func, class, or whatever.
>> >
>> > Hmm, not sure. Could be done but adds yet another button, yet
>> > another thing you need to sort out when you do a quick
>> > search/replace. (this is not a 'no', just a 'I won't work on it')
>[...]
>> "In Scope"
>> sounds interesting, but I think it would be too complicated
>> practically to be added alongside the other find/replace modes. My
>> misgivings:
>>
>> 1. Would it work reliably/predictably, even in cases of complex C++
>> code and the like?
>>
>> 2. What, exactly, does "scope" mean? Body of the current
>> function/method? (Would it include the signature line, so you can
>> find/replace the formal parameters too?)
>
>Yes, I meant that. Precisely, as a formal parameter (name) is a local
>variable (name), I find practicle to be able to "replace all" in the
>scope of the name life. Namely (sic!) a namespace is imo the proper
>scope of a "replace all" feature in many cases, if not most. So that
>when writing "in scope" I rather meant "in the extent of the current
>code section that defines a namespace".
> What about just the current curly-brace block, which
>> would also have a claim to the term "scope?" Or the current
>> class? Would there be a preference to decide between these, or would
>> it be something set by the language syntax driver?
>
>The note above basically excludes lower level code blocks such as
>loops or ifs. Anyway, this seems mostly useful for funcs/methods and
>it would apply on a whole class only when one points at a line at
>class top-level. An alternative may be to define this at per-language
>level inside language specific config files, so that there would be
>both a geany default and possible user preference.