Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: 20110615-0604 It is not possible to disable the sort of the content assist. If i type something like: structure. a window is opened with the members of the structure. The problem is, that the members are always sorted and there is no way to disable the sort. Preferences->C/C++->Editor->Content Assist->Present Proposals in alphabetical order do not change anything. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a typedef of a structure. typedef struct { int test2_u32; int test1_u32; } test_ts; 2. Create the structure: test_ts test_s; 3. Type "test_s." without " to see that there is no way to see the original order of the structure members. test1_u32 is always the first entry.
There are two issues here: 1) Content assist always sorts candidate completion proposals alphabetically as part of a de-duplication step. Then, if "Present proposals in alphabetical order" is unchecked, it re-sorts the proposals by relevance. If two proposals have the same relevance (as in your example), their relative order will be preserved from the previous sort, which was the alphabetical one. This would be straightforward to fix by rewriting the de-duplication step to preserve the relative order of the candidate proposals, and then only sort alphabetically if "Present proposals in alphabetic order" is checked. 2) The index does not preserve the declaration order of members of composite types. This means that, when the index is used to build the list of candidate proposals (which happens when the structure whose fields are the candidates is defined in a different file than the one in which completion is being invoked), the order of the candidate proposals already will not be the declaration order. So, even with the above change, the resulting order will not be the declaration order. This is harder to fix. Controlling the order in which bindings are stored in the index is difficult, so the most practical solution would be to have each member store a "position number". We currently do this for C++ fields (where we use the position to match up fields with initializer list clauses during constexpr computations) but not for C fields, nor for C++ methods.
