Author Topic: SE 2.0.0.3.0 C++ Beautifier Issues  (Read 1450 times)

scott.zzz

  • New Community Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Hero Points: 0
SE 2.0.0.3.0 C++ Beautifier Issues
« on: September 08, 2016, 06:45:38 pm »
I am running into issues when running the beautifier with VC++ code, any time the type of the first parameter is marked with a circumflex (^), i.e:

void foo( int^ i, int j)
{
    if(...)
  {
  }
}

But if I remove the circumflex, it will format everything as expected:
void foo( int i, int j)
{
  if(...)
  {
  }
}

I have looked through all of the configuration options available for my beautify profile, but have not been able to correct this. Anyone have any ideas on how I can rectify this?

Tim Kemp

  • Senior Community Member
  • Posts: 537
  • Hero Points: 91
Re: SE 2.0.0.3.0 C++ Beautifier Issues
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2016, 07:07:20 pm »
Does that have some esoteric meaning that I'm not aware of? Or is it a syntax error?

If it's a syntax error, this is what they told me recently: https://community.slickedit.com/index.php/topic,13856.msg54387.html

patrick

  • SlickEdit Team Member
  • Senior Community Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1233
  • Hero Points: 119
Re: SE 2.0.0.3.0 C++ Beautifier Issues
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2016, 07:08:21 pm »
The C++ beautifier doesn't support the C++/CLI or "Managed Extensions for C++" syntax, there hasn't been a lot of demand for it.  There is an existing feature request I can add a reference to this post as another vote for it though. 


scott.zzz

  • New Community Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Hero Points: 0
Re: SE 2.0.0.3.0 C++ Beautifier Issues
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2016, 07:32:38 pm »
Gotcha, I was guessing it had to do with the lack of support with C++/CLI. Was hoping there would be some non-obvious beautifier configuration I could use to prevent the odd formatting from occurring. 

patrick

  • SlickEdit Team Member
  • Senior Community Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1233
  • Hero Points: 119
Re: SE 2.0.0.3.0 C++ Beautifier Issues
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2016, 07:50:40 pm »
I don't think there's a way to cheese it through for this case.

And this is just for the beautifier - the tagging supports the CLI syntax, so completions and the like should still work.