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

[BUG] PGraphics.resetMatrix() replaced with translate(x, y, z) by Intellisense #102

Open
ndesprez opened this issue Sep 16, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ndesprez
Copy link

ndesprez commented Sep 16, 2021

Bug description
When pressing TAB after typing resetM, "resetMatrix()" appears in the predictive keyword list but when TAB is pressed, the text is replaced by "translate(x, y, z)".

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Type "resetM"
  2. Press TAB

Expected behavior
resetM should be replaced by resetMatrix().

VSCode

  • OS: Windows 10 21H1
  • Version 1.60.1
@AvinZarlez
Copy link
Owner

This extension does not provide intellisense. It does however provide snippets.

The relavent snippet:

	"resetMatrix": {
		"prefix": "resetMatrix",
		"body": "translate(${1:x}, ${2:y}, ${3:z});",
		"description": "resetMatrix",
		"scope": "source.pde"
	},

I got those snippets definitions a long time ago from the sublime package https://github.com/b-g/processing-sublime/blob/a1bc61861024060572ea0be9e79a4f6ac471de20/Snippets/resetMatrix.sublime-snippet

It's been forever since I used processing so not sure why the commend is that way in the sublime snippet (and thus here)

If it is supposed to be resetMatrix, it would be as simple as changing to:

	"resetMatrix": {
		"prefix": "resetMatrix",
		"body": "resetMatrix()",
		"description": "resetMatrix",
		"scope": "source.pde"
	},

Can you think of a reason why it would be the other way? Otherwise, I can fix this when I get around to making the next version release

@ndesprez
Copy link
Author

Hi Tobias. Thanks for your reply. There's no reason why resetMatrix() should be replaced with a translate(). Your proposed correction seems good to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants