[wingide-users] Word completion and refactoring support

Wingware Support support at wingware.com
Tue Jul 3 14:37:30 MDT 2007


Geoff Bache wrote:
> (1) I miss the emacs "word completion" feature a lot. (Autocomplete 
> words found in open files irrespective of whether they are correct 
> syntax or not)
> Am I correct in thinking Wing has no support for this?

Hi,

Wing offers autocompletion when it has a fairly high degree of 
confidence that the symbol would be appropriate to insert at the cursor 
position.  The rationale is not to present choices that may be wrong and 
make it appear that a symbol is available when it is not.  This is the 
primary reason it doesn't implement emacs style word completion.

That said, we've had numerous requests for emacs style and other word 
completion and will be adding them in the future, along with a way to 
indicate the confidence Wing has that a given symbol is appropriate.

> (2) I was hoping autocompletion or refactoring support would make up for 
> this, but it seems the autocompletion only has scope of one method,
> which limits its usefulness. For example, consider this method:
> 
> def method(self, param1):
>    list = []
>    val = self.otherMethod(param1)
> 
> If I append to this method, I will get a drop-down list of methods for 
> "self" and "list" here (or any modules I might use), but not
> for "param1" or "val", even if the type of these is totally obvious from 
> adjoining methods in the same class. Is this to be expected?

This is a case where Wing can't infer the type of param1 even when it's 
totally obvious to a person and refuses to guess.  We hope to improve 
the inference engine in the future so more of these cases can be 
inferred.  A workaround for now is to insert 'assert isinstance' calls, 
which isn't ideal but a few strategically placed calls can go a long way.

> (3) Reading the list of feature additions in Wing 3.0 made it seem to me 
> like the bulk of the effort is being put into improving the
> debugger. To me this seems a shame when more and more people are moving 
> away from using debuggers towards driving development
> with tests.

We see testing and debugging as complementary -- a test can fail and 
then the debugger is awfully handy in figuring out what is wrong and how 
to fix it.  Yes, some argue that debuggers aren't necessary but that's 
been the case for years and other developers have found debuggers to be 
invaluable.

Refactoring is in our plans for future releases.

Thanks for your feedback,

John



More information about the wingide-users mailing list