Comments in function list

[Philippe GRANGE]

Hi all,

When inserting comments it avoids function list to run correctly :

this works fine :

using System;
public namsespace toto
{
	public partial class A
	{
		public A()
		{
		}
		
		public int GetB(int a)
		{
		}
		
		public void SetAValue(int v)
		{
			AVal = a;
		}
		
		private int AVal {get; set; }
	}
}

but this does not work :

using System;


public namsespace toto
{
	public partial class A
	{
		// <summary>
		// Constructor
		// </summary>
		public A()
		{
		}
		
		public int GetB(int a)
		{
			
		}
		
		public void SetAValue(int v)
		{
			AVal = a;
		}
		
		private int AVal {get; set; }
	}
}

What am I doing wrong ?

Thx in advance,
Philippe

[PeterJones]

@Philippe-GRANGE ,

It looks like it might be a bug in the default FunctionList parser for C#, because I can definitely confirm that adding a comment definitely stops the functionList from parsing correctly (even if I put blank lines before and after).

I took a brief look at it: if I extract out the function-name regex from the XML (and fix the &-entities to actual characters) to try regex ^[^\S\r\n]*(?<modifier1>(?:public|protected|internal|private)\s*)?(?<modifier2>(?:new|static|virtual|sealed|override|abstract|extern)\s*)?(partial\s*)?(?<type>(?!(return|if|else))\w+(?<genericType><[\w,\s<>]+>)?\s+)(?<name>\w+(?<genericNameType><[\w,\s<>]+>)?\s?)\((?<params>[\w\s,<>\[\]\:=\.]*)\)(?<ctorChain>\s*\:\s*(?:base|this)\s*\((?<ctorParams>[\w\s,<>\[\]\:=\.]*)\))?[\w\s<>\:,\(\)\[\]]*(?:\{|;) in Notepad++, it can find the names whether or not there’s a comment. And the name-token-extractor (\w+(<[\w,\s<>]+>)?\s?) regex works as it should.

So I’m guessing it’s how the comment-expression (?s:/\*.*?\*/)|(?m-s://.*?$) is interacting with the name-searcher… I would think the .*? to make those wildcards non-greedy would work correctly, and the comment would stop getting in the way.

I don’t know if @MAPJe71 has ever applied his effort to the C# parser (maybe not, because his repo doesn’t have one), but maybe he has some ideas, because he’s our guru.

As an interim fix, you might want to edit your c:\program files\notepad++\functionList\cs.xml and get rid of the commentExpr for now; after making that edit and restarting notepad++, it should at least allow you to move forward until an expert can figure out what’s wrong.

[Lycan Thrope]

@PeterJones ,
If I remember right, I had this problem almost a year ago now, that the problem was most likely in the FunctionList functionParser.cpp, where comments zones would break the functionlist functionality when they were inside of class declaration areas.

I could be wrong, but I went over and over this, and I think this is the answer I was given, and that it most likely wasn’t going to be fixed because it would need to be rewritten and would most likely break other code.

I could be wrong, but that is approximately the problem as I remember it.

[Philippe GRANGE]

OK I see your point. Thanks for documented answer !
Have fun,
Phil

[Lycan Thrope]

@Philippe-GRANGE ,
Rechecking the FunctionList FAQ, I found this section, which might be the reason for the problem.

“Embedded” comment is not supported when the ‘commentExpr’-attribute is defined. All the comment blocks (found in parse step 1) are skipped when searching for class code blocks (parse step 2) and method/function code blocks (parse step 3.3 and 4, resp.) i.e. the function definition has to start and end in the same non-comment zone (even if ‘mainExpr’ takes into account function-definition-embedded comments).

I believe this was the reason a thread I started regarding comments and the functionlist finally resolved that the embedded comments was the reason it fails in a class.

[PeterJones]

@Lycan-Thrope ,

Thanks for the research.

@Philippe-GRANGE ,

If you don’t frequently try to comment out a function name, then you can probably get away with just not having commentExpr defined long-term.

[Philippe GRANGE]

@PeterJones
I’ll try this and let you know.
Thx !

[Demetrio Foti]

Hi all.
After reading as much as I can in the community forum, I decided not to having a defined commentExpr until the bug is solved.
First of all I noticed I cannot simply delete the label, but I have to keep it together with an empty string:
commentExpr=“”

Once I took this decision, I just met a situation where the function was entirely commented :(
“Luck is blind but misfortune sees very well” :P

So I don’t want to push the bugfix, I’d like just to know if the fix is planned in the very next releases or not. Just to remember when I will be able to enable again comments.
Tx ;)

[PeterJones]

@Demetrio-Foti said in Comments in function list:

I’d like just to know if the fix is planned in the very next releases or not

It is not planned, no. The bug has been known about for at least 7 years, so if it’s been around that long, it’s not likely to get fixed in the near future.