Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 91113

Summary:	[search] Misleading ordering of search matches inside one element
Product:	[Eclipse Project] JDT	Reporter:	Philipe Mulet <philippe_mulet>
Component:	UI	Assignee:	JDT-UI-Inbox <jdt-ui-inbox>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3
Version:	3.1
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:	stalebug

Description Philipe Mulet

2005-04-12 07:41:13 EDT

3.1m6

In source version of org.eclipse.jdt.core, searching for references to
Binding.TYPE detects 6 hits inside the class itself (as field constant
initializations). When iterating through the matches, these are ordered in
alphabetical order instead of syntactic order, which causes some yoyo effect
when navigating through the matches.

type: org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.lookup.Binding
search for reference to constant Binding.TYPE

Here are the various constants, which aren't sorted alphabetically.

	public static final int FIELD = ASTNode.Bit1;
	public static final int LOCAL = ASTNode.Bit2;
	public static final int VARIABLE = FIELD | LOCAL;
	public static final int TYPE = ASTNode.Bit3;
	public static final int METHOD = ASTNode.Bit4;
	public static final int PACKAGE = ASTNode.Bit5;
	public static final int IMPORT = ASTNode.Bit6;
	public static final int ARRAY_TYPE = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit7;
	public static final int BASE_TYPE = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit8;
	public static final int PARAMETERIZED_TYPE = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit9;
	public static final int WILDCARD_TYPE = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit10;
	public static final int RAW_TYPE = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit11;
	public static final int GENERIC_TYPE = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit12;
	public static final int TYPE_PARAMETER = TYPE | ASTNode.Bit13;

Comment 1 Eclipse Genie

2019-11-19 04:43:03 EST

This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

--
The automated Eclipse Genie.