You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The EnumerizationComputer only returns the absolute minimal sets corresponding
to how the
enums should be grouped. It may be possible that the developer wants to group
these groups into
larger groups. For example, the computer may return two sets consisting of the
program elements
((RED, GREEN, BLUE),(ORANGE, color)) where the capitalized names are constants
and color a local
variable. The developer may wish to group these two sets together to make a
COLOR enum type.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by raffi.t.khatchadourian on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:07
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Each time the grouping is altered, the pre-conditions for the refactoring
should be rechecked. I don't know,
however, if this should be done by the wizard or the refactoring itself.
Original comment by raffi.t.khatchadourian on 1 Sep 2009 at 12:36
As I'm looking over this stuff now, the reason why we have been having so much
trouble making head way with the refactoring wizard is that, unlike the "new
enum" wizard, this wizard can result in the creation of multiple enum types.
That is, the refactoring groups the input constants into their minimal type
dependent sets (where changing one member of the set requires refactoring all
other members) and proceeds to refactor each of these sets into its own enum
type. An alternative thing to do would be to group the constants into their
maximal sets instead and let the user break them down. In either case, the
wizard should allow the user to:
1. Merge and split the constant grouping, checking the initial preconditions
each time.
2. Specify the names and packages for multiple enum types to be created.
Original comment by raffi.t.khatchadourian on 10 Oct 2010 at 11:54
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
raffi.t.khatchadourian
on 25 Aug 2009 at 7:07The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: