Tweaking code refactoring options in Qt Creator

Robert Hairgrove

When writing C++ code, it's very cool to add a member function in a class header file and have Qt Creator automagically add the stub in the .cpp file for you (right-click on the function name, choose "Refactor" and then choose the option from the context menu).

Is it possible to tweak some of that functionality, for example to add a comment such as "// TO DO..." to the function body, or stubs for functions that return values? I have looked for any configuration files that might have the templates, but so far haven't had any luck. Or is this compiled in with the sources?

mrjj

Hi
I was also interested tweaking it but it seems
its not accessible from outside. ( in any config files I could find)

So most likely its compiled into creator via some qrc file.
I might have missed it, so you could go looking in the source. :)

Pradeep Kumar

Hi,

Welcome to Forum

are you looking like this similar

/**

@brief ClassName::func
*/

type /** and then click enter.
u will get like the above one.

void ClassName::void func()
{
// func body
}

Pradeep Kumar

For the function u can type expicitly using

void ClassName::void func()
{
/*
*
*
* func() Body commenting part for the repective function.
*
*/

              // func body

}

as above , you can type.

Thanks,

Robert Hairgrove

@Pradeep-Kumar ... thanks for the suggestions. But it's not just about (Doxygen) comments, I know about those, too. I am also thinking about this situation:

// in file.hpp:
class foo {
  bool init();
// etc. 
};

Then I get this in the .cpp file as default implementation when I refactor it:

bool foo::init()
{

}

What would be nice is to have a template which would generate this instead:

bool foo::init() 
{
    bool retval = true;
    // TO DO...
    return retval;
}

(of course, only if there was some trivial return type such as bool, int, or double).
At least that way I don't forget to return something... it would even compile without warnings to that effect. OTOH it might be useful NOT to provide a default implementation so that if I forgot to implement something, the compiler would tell me... YMMV

Pradeep Kumar

@Robert-Hairgrove

Honestly i have never tried that.
As mentioned by @mrjj should look into the source.