Sign in to follow this  
alway616

auto correct for compilers, does it exist?

Recommended Posts

alway616    122
Is there an auto correct menu on the Dev C++ compiler (kinda like the one on microsoft word)? if so where is it? the reason i want one, is: A: im lazy, i get tired of putting the #include........ B: with an auto correct on my compiler i would be able to make code 10 times faster because then i could have my own syntax for the sytax (ex:type 'i..' and it auto corrects it to #include <iostream> or somethin like that) if there isn't one i will just have to start typing my programs in microsoft word then copy and pastin em into my compiler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
templewulf    526
Quote:
Original post by alway616
Is there an auto correct menu on the Dev C++ compiler (kinda like the one on microsoft word)? if so where is it?
the reason i want one, is:
A: im lazy, i get tired of putting the #include........
B: with an auto correct on my compiler i would be able to make code 10 times faster because then i could have my own syntax for the sytax (ex:type 'i..' and it auto corrects it to #include <iostream> or somethin like that)



if there isn't one i will just have to start typing my programs in microsoft word then copy and pastin em into my compiler

Intellisense does that. Or, at least, close enough to it for me. I hate MS Word because it won't stop trying to "correct" me.

EDIT:
Intellisense on wikipedia

It won't do #include for you (as far as I know), but it keeps me from having to remember other people's capitalization schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheAdmiral    1122
I second the vote for Visual Assist. It has changed my life [rolleyes].

Be warned that it doesn't support Visual Studio Express Edition, though. If only it did, I'd be free to upgrade to 2005 and my world would be complete [sad].

Regards
Admiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alway616    122
it looks good and all but i second the part about $149 being to much...
plus its not truely auto correct, u can't enter in sytaxes that it will auto correct into the right thing, u have to reach up and click or press enter key...
plus u have to type in part of the syntax, with autocorrect u could make it so if you type in for instance "newprog" and have it auto correct it to
___________
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
___________

making life alot easier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CmpDev    100
Quote:
Original post by alway616
it looks good and all but i second the part about $149 being to much...
plus its not truely auto correct, u can't enter in sytaxes that it will auto correct into the right thing, u have to reach up and click or press enter key...
plus u have to type in part of the syntax, with autocorrect u could make it so if you type in for instance "newprog" and have it auto correct it to
___________
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
___________

making life alot easier



lol yes alt+a alt+i scroll enter is far to much to ask for the following


#include <windows.h>
LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam);
int WINAPI WinMain (HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, PSTR szCmdLine, int iCmdShow)
{
static TCHAR szAppName[] = TEXT ("");
HWND hwnd;
MSG msg;
WNDCLASSEX wndclassex = {0};
wndclassex.cbSize = sizeof(WNDCLASSEX);
wndclassex.style = CS_HREDRAW | CS_VREDRAW;
wndclassex.lpfnWndProc = WndProc;
wndclassex.cbClsExtra = 0;
wndclassex.cbWndExtra = 0;
wndclassex.hInstance = hInstance;
wndclassex.hIcon = LoadIcon (NULL, IDI_APPLICATION);
wndclassex.hCursor = LoadCursor (NULL, IDC_ARROW);
wndclassex.hbrBackground = (HBRUSH) GetStockObject (WHITE_BRUSH);
wndclassex.lpszMenuName = NULL;
wndclassex.lpszClassName = szAppName;
wndclassex.hIconSm = wndclassex.hIcon;

if (!RegisterClassEx (&wndclassex))
{
MessageBox (NULL, TEXT ("RegisterClassEx failed!"), szAppName, MB_ICONERROR);
return 0;
}
hwnd = CreateWindowEx (WS_EX_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW,
szAppName,
TEXT ("WindowTitle"),
WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW,
CW_USEDEFAULT,
CW_USEDEFAULT,
CW_USEDEFAULT,
CW_USEDEFAULT,
NULL,
NULL,
hInstance,
NULL);

ShowWindow (hwnd, iCmdShow);
UpdateWindow (hwnd);

while (GetMessage (&msg, NULL, 0, 0))
{
TranslateMessage (&msg);
DispatchMessage (&msg);
}
return msg.wParam;
}
LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
HDC hdc;
PAINTSTRUCT ps;
switch (message)
{
case WM_CREATE:
return (0);

case WM_PAINT:
hdc = BeginPaint (hwnd, &ps);
TextOut (hdc, 0, 0, "A Window!", 27);
EndPaint (hwnd, &ps);
return (0);

case WM_DESTROY:
PostQuitMessage (0);
return (0);
}
return DefWindowProc (hwnd, message, wParam, lParam);
}



Yes you can also enter you own autotext inserts.
The price is very good for what it gives you and the time it saves, as the saying goes "time is money".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheAdmiral    1122
Off-topic, on-tangent:

It's the flawless prediction of the next variable I'm going to use that charms me most. However, it has somewhat corrupted my coding karma, as I'm in the habit of only ever typing '.' and having it auto-corrected to '->' when appropriate [help].

Regards
Admiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashkan    451
Syntactic errors are not the hard ones to catch and fix; compiler warnings and errors are fine by me. Semantics are the hardies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ApochPiQ    23005
There can never be a true auto-corrector for code, though; the reason is actually pretty simple. In a programming language, making up words is perfectly normal (for instance, FooFunction). In any nontrivial program, I will have to write some words that the auto-corrector has never seen before (at least in the current program, or maybe even ever). This means that, for any nontrivial program, there will be at least one instance where I type something that is right that the auto-corrector will think is wrong (since it's never seen it before).

English, however, tends to be rather less lenient with the inventiagation of newlicious verbiliations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alway616    122
Quote:
Original post by ApochPiQ
There can never be a true auto-corrector for code, though; the reason is actually pretty simple. In a programming language, making up words is perfectly normal (for instance, FooFunction). In any nontrivial program, I will have to write some words that the auto-corrector has never seen before (at least in the current program, or maybe even ever). This means that, for any nontrivial program, there will be at least one instance where I type something that is right that the auto-corrector will think is wrong (since it's never seen it before).

English, however, tends to be rather less lenient with the inventiagation of newlicious verbiliations.


which is why you would use words and such that you would never use for example my example of 'i..' because where on earth would you use 'i..'????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this