Re: #5662- Option to use class names instead of C# keyword for data types
I'll second this. Our organizational policy forces me to do so, which now means that I have to 'correct' some of ReSharper's formatted code (I don't want to use the formatting, though).

In the extreme, I would like to see options for each of the mentioned types (e.g., whether to use 'Object' or 'object', 'Int32' or 'int', etc), with two overriding schemes for .NET versus C# types.

Also on the nice side would be to have 'Nullable<ValueType>' instead of 'ValueType?'.

Re: #5662- Option to use class names instead of C# keyword for data types
I'll second this. Our organizational policy forces me to do so, which now means that I have to 'correct' some of ReSharper's formatted code (I don't want to use the formatting, though).

In the extreme, I would like to see options for each of the mentioned types (e.g., whether to use 'Object' or 'object', 'Int32' or 'int', etc), with two overriding schemes for .NET versus C# types.

Also on the nice side would be to have 'Nullable<ValueType>' instead of 'ValueType?'.

Another vote for this. It's so inconsistent to see, for example, a method signature like:

MyReturnType MyMethod(SomeType a, AnotherType b, SomethingElse c, bool d, YetAnother e);

with 'bool' looking completely out of place, particularly with the different colours for the syntax highlighting. I wouldn't want to change the colour for 'keywords', because it's useful to have keywords (like 'if', 'else', 'for') a different colour. When specifying types of variables or arguments however, I want a type name, not a keyword that is an alias for a type, and for it to be highlighted as a type, not a keyword.

I second that. Our style guide says CLR typenames and it's very annoying to fix extracted/generated methods and properties by hand. This even goes for loop snippets (foreach) where you can only choose between var and the language type name.

I third this (or fifth it). Would like to see Type names and not keywords for bool, string, int etc. Should be Boolean, String, Int32.

I think this should not be the default behavior because having "String" in code requires "using System;" at the top. Which might be a minor issue, but if it is not needed, why have it? Keywords are always there, and do not produce ambiguity. Having a possibly unneeded "using" might introduce additional complexities (such as if some 3rd party library having some type with the same name as in System)

I'd like an alternative between the two if you implement this some day. I personally always use keywords to define a member or variable (eg int i), but always use class names for members calls (eg Int32.TryParse).

@Yuri: That isn't strictly true. ReSharper can just do what it always does when generating a reference to a type for which you haven't added a using statement - fully qualify the type name and use for example System.String instead. Not that I mind what the default setting is, just that there should be a setting for those of us who want type names instead of keywords.