Open abourget opened 8 years ago
Any reason why we don't want to use go-guru ?
The main reason is that we must support broken non-compilable code.
It seems it would solve this one #1251 which is long standing, as well as #604
As far as I know guru
cannot extract method so we can't solve #604 with it?
As for the issue, I don't see any practical benefit in freevars
implementation, do you?
no indeed.. I guess the only interesting thing is the implements
feature, where we can list all the types that implement a given interface.
I thought a quick integration would provide that feature, but maybe there are more downsides than upsides :)
I've noticed a "Go tools" menu (or something alike) .. perhaps calling out in there could rely on pre-installed software if available ?
Oh, ok. Well, I believe implements
and overrides
feature will be available soon. As for this issue, let's keep it as a subissue of #604.
I thought a quick integration would provide that feature
Yes, feel free to implement it via GoTools, I don't mind to merge it.
Oh, ok. Well, I believe implements and overrides feature will be available soon.
Any idea how soon?
Oh, ok. Well, I believe implements and overrides feature will be available soon.
Are there any issues for these features?
I'm trying to do something like
go-guru
's freevars, to do extraction. Also, I'm trying to list the structs that implement a certain interface. Those two things are already available ingo-guru
.. and I assumed I could simply call it from IDEA.Any reason why we don't want to use go-guru ?
It seems it would solve this one https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin/issues/1251 which is long standing, as well as https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin/issues/604
I know what go-guru does is quite complex.. so I thought it'd be useful to not have to re-implement.
If we can have those two features without go-guru, I'd be fine also :)
Subissue of #604