▲ | Doxin 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There's nothing preventing UFCS from working with code completion. e.g. given:
You can now write code like this:
There is absolutely no reason that typing "foo." would not suggest "addOne" as possibility. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | layer8 a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
My comment was about the reverse, using function syntax for methods. Furthermore, I don’t think it necessarily makes sense for all functions that happen to take, say, a string as their first argument, to be listed in the code completion for method invocation on a string variable. If you merely want to define auxiliary methods outside of a class, which is the thing the GP seems to like, that’s what’s usually called “extension methods”. It doesn’t require uniform call syntax. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|