This is more of a suggestion. Need to consider and see if what I'm proposing is feasible/makes sense from a language semantics POV. Consider the following:
type Foo object {
function foo(); // <1>
};
class Bar {
*Foo;
function foo() {} // <2>
}
Currently when we rename foo() method at either <1> or <2>, it only renames that particular case (along with its usages I presume). Suppose we rename foo to bar at <1>. Then this breaks all the places in the code where we have used Foo as a type inclusion. So can we consider or rather is it correct to consider foo() at <2> a reference of foo() at <1> and rename foo to bar at <2> as well? The inverse shouldn't happen though: renaming foo() at <2> to bar() shouldn't change foo() at <1>.
sanjana
commented
1 year ago
Description
This is more of a suggestion. Need to consider and see if what I'm proposing is feasible/makes sense from a language semantics POV. Consider the following:
Currently when we rename
foo()method at either <1> or <2>, it only renames that particular case (along with its usages I presume). Suppose we renamefootobarat <1>. Then this breaks all the places in the code where we have usedFooas a type inclusion. So can we consider or rather is it correct to considerfoo()at <2> a reference offoo()at <1> and renamefootobarat <2> as well? The inverse shouldn't happen though: renamingfoo()at <2> tobar()shouldn't changefoo()at <1>.Describe your problem(s)
No response
Describe your solution(s)
No response
Related area
-> Editor
Related issue(s) (optional)
No response
Suggested label(s) (optional)
No response
Suggested assignee(s) (optional)
No response