Re: MI varobj artificial fields

[Aleksandar Ristovski <ARistovski at qnx dot com>]

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Right now, when you're in C++ program and ask for children of a varobj
> that has structure type, you don't the the fields. Instead, you get
> "public", "private" and "protected" as children.
> 
Thank you for addressing this! 

> I don't think this makes very much sense. Presenting access specifies in
UI
> as items in the tree seems to just clutter things. Especially as in C++, 
> classes are either POD, with everything public, or real classes, with
everything
> private. Protected data is generally frowned upon. So, most often we'll
have
> a lonely "public" or "private" item having all the real item.
> 
> Furthermore, even if class has a mixture of public, protected and private
data,
> do we expect the user to remember the visibility of the field he's after?

I don't see a reason to treat them as "children", but I think the
accessibility info. could be useful as a child's attribute (as someone
suggested already). If nothing else, for clarity, one (an ide) might choose
to see/organize fields by accessibility (for whatever reason).


Thanks,

Aleksandar Ristovski
QNX Software Systems