Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor Texteditor code to ImHex standards. #1891

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

paxcut
Copy link
Contributor

@paxcut paxcut commented Sep 5, 2024

There is no code added or removed. All changes are to make Text editor code look more like the rest of ImHex.

  • All member variable names that used a convention like in mFieldVariable were switched to the common ImHex convention of m_fieldVariable.
  • All member function names that used pascal case were switched to the common ImHex convention of camel case.
  • All int, unsigned int, unsigned long ... were switched to int32_t, uint32_t, uint64_t,... I used those because TextEditor has no access to the ImHex headers where the types are defined.
  • Local variable names that were cryptic were given more descriptive ones.
  • Other changes include a few fixes from cppCheck mostly for variable scope.

paxcut and others added 2 commits September 5, 2024 00:58
There is no code added or removed. All changes are to make Text editor code look more like the rest of ImHex.
- All member variable names that used a convention like in `mFieldVariable` were switched to the common ImHex convention of `m_fieldVariable`.
- All member function names that used pascal case were switched to the common ImHex convention of camel case.
- All int, unsigned int, unsigned long ... were switched to int32_t, uint32_t, uint64_t,... I used those because TextEditor has no access to the ImHex headers where the types are defined.
- Local variable names that were cryptic were given more descriptive ones.
- Other changes include a few fixes from cppCheck mostly for variable scope.
@paxcut
Copy link
Contributor Author

paxcut commented Sep 13, 2024

I tried to merge this locally and found that it is probably not a good idea to do a large refactor when there are lots of prs pending, so I'll draft this for now and wait until there has been a chance to merge the others

@paxcut paxcut marked this pull request as draft September 13, 2024 04:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant