# Incorporating \`methodswith\`

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/incorporating-methodswith/95245>\
**Category:** VS Code\
**Tags:** feature-request\
**Created:** [February 27, 2023, 1:14am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/incorporating-methodswith/95245 "2023-02-27T01:14:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![uniment](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/uniment/32/24532_2.png) [@uniment](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/uniment)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2023, 2:28am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/incorporating-methodswith/95245/2 "2023-02-27T02:28:08Z")

</div>

`methodswith` is a bit too simple: because much of an object’s interface is inherited from its abstract supertype, and because many methods rely on duck typing, many relevant methods won’t appear.

However, it’s possible to come up with something a bit more sophisticated: I did that in [this comment](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fixing-the-piping-chaining-issue/89654/191), in the context of debating a function chaining syntax. Basically, it recursively calls `methodswith` on supertypes to show all methods that _could_ be called on this object.

In theory, an autocomplete could also be linked to a database of statistical data from GitHub, or even a personal codebase, to sort the shown methods by the frequency with which they’re called on the object’s type.

The latest function chaining syntax proposal [is here](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fixing-the-piping-chaining-issue-rev-3/90836).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/incorporating-methodswith/95245)._