December 2008 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Morphic Halos

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

OK I will check for the shift because I thought it worked. On Dec 29, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Rob Rothwell wrote: > Thanks...Preferences halosEnabled did it. Shift-click doesn't seem > to work, though... > > Take care, > > Rob > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:18 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > > wrote: > Press shift or Preferences enableHalos > > On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Rob Rothwell wrote: > > So...how do I bring up a Morph's halo in Pharo now? Something > between 10196 and 10201 made the Alt-click quit working...! > > Take care, > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > >

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Dictionary as a Set

by Damien Cassou

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexandre Bergel <Alexandre.Bergel(a)inria.fr> wrote: > I was wondering whether I am the only one shocked when I see this: > > (Set new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: #b -> 'B' ====> true > (Set new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: 'B' ====> false > > (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: #b -> 'B' ====> > false > (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: 'B' ====> true > > Dictionary inherits from Set. This means that if Set would have a > contract, it would break in Dictionary. > IMO, we should have > (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: #b -> 'B' ====> > true > (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: 'B' ====> false > > No? No :-). I guess #add: has (should have) no meaning for a dictionary and should not be implemented. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Morphic Halos

by Rob Rothwell

Thanks...Preferences halosEnabled did it. Shift-click doesn't seem to work, though... Take care, Rob On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:18 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > Press shift or Preferences enableHalos > > On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Rob Rothwell wrote: > > So...how do I bring up a Morph's halo in Pharo now? Something between >> 10196 and 10201 made the Alt-click quit working...! >> >> Take care, >> >> Rob >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > >

Dec. 29, 2008

[Pharo-project] Dictionary as a Set

by Alexandre Bergel

Dear List, I was wondering whether I am the only one shocked when I see this: (Set new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: #b -> 'B' ====> true (Set new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: 'B' ====> false (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: #b -> 'B' ====> false (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: 'B' ====> true Dictionary inherits from Set. This means that if Set would have a contract, it would break in Dictionary. IMO, we should have (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: #b -> 'B' ====> true (Dictionary new add: #b -> 'B'; yourself) includes: 'B' ====> false No? Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] On not unnecessarily closing down the language

by Lukas Renggli

Please don't forget that "writable arguments" was just a side note of the original issue I reported. The real issue is that the Pharo compiler is **not ANSI compatible** anymore and that it refuses to compile valid Smalltalk code, because it wants to enforce some coding conventions. This makes it unnecessarily hard to port code from other Smalltalk dialects and prevents already today some external Seaside dependencies to load cleanly. I hope this is going to be fixed, because this is clearly broken. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] On not unnecessarily closing down the language

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I agree and to me looks like a change for a change. There are so much things I would like to see better in Pharo... On Dec 29, 2008, at 2:51 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > 2008/12/29 Alexandre Bergel <Alexandre.Bergel(a)inria.fr>: >> Frankly speaking, I am left unconvinced that allowing argument to be >> writable will increase the quality of Pharo. >> > me too. > It would be better to keep distinction between arguments and temps and > do not rely on implementation. > I think that in stack-based VM , an assignable arguments could be > problematic, because if you want to restart a method, you will be > unable to recover original values because they are not copied in > context but lying on stack. > >> Alexandre >> >> >> On 27 Dec 2008, at 13:31, David Pennell wrote: >> >>> Its handy to at least have the option of making args writable in >>> order to support implementing languages like Javascript on top of >>> the bytecode set. >>> >>> -david >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <yoshiki(a)vpri.org> >>> wrote: >>> At Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:24:02 -0800, >>> Vassili Bykov wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima >>> <yoshiki(a)vpri.org> wrote: >>>>> At Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:11:16 +0100, >>>>> Michael Rueger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What really is the convenience of modifying an argument? Having >>> not to >>>>>> think up another name? I never understood this argument >>> especially if >>>>>> you need to use the original value of the argument in several >>> places. >>>>> >>>>> If you can think of an argument as a "temp initialized by the >>>>> caller" (like C), that kind of unifies the args and temps and >>> would >>>>> reduce the implementation complexity. In *some cases* it would >>> reduce >>>>> the lines of code in the user land. >>>> >>>> Or alternatively one can think of a temp as an argument of an >>> invisible block, >>>> >>>> | foo | >>>> foo := 3. >>>> ... >>>> >>>> being a form of >>>> >>>> [:foo | ...] value: 3. >>> >>> If args are assignable, and yes you can unify methods and blocks. >>> >>> But I'm pretty much convinced that debugged context being >>> restartable (by making args readonly) is important in practice. >>> >>> -- Yoshiki >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Morphic Halos

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Press shift or Preferences enableHalos On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Rob Rothwell wrote: > So...how do I bring up a Morph's halo in Pharo now? Something > between 10196 and 10201 made the Alt-click quit working...! > > Take care, > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] On not unnecessarily closing down the language

by Alexandre Bergel

> Once more I make the point that these facilities should be developed > and > packaged as a contribution to all squeakers not just pharo. Sure! Pharo should allow this to happen. Nobody said the contrary. Overriding compilerClass should enable this, and, ideally, the compiler should allow you to switch a 'false' into a 'true' for obtain the effect you desire... Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] On not unnecessarily closing down the language

by Keith Hodges

Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Frankly speaking, I am left unconvinced that allowing argument to be > writable will increase the quality of Pharo. > > Alexandre > > Readability readability readability. If I have to assign a temporary just to put some gating conditions to an argument, say I need a url without a trailing slash. I end up with two similarly named variables, with similar values, but completely different behaviour, one being mutable the other immutable. I would love arguments to be mutable. Once more I make the point that these facilities should be developed and packaged as a contribution to all squeakers not just pharo. Keith

Dec. 29, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] On not unnecessarily closing down the language

by Igor Stasenko

2008/12/29 Alexandre Bergel <Alexandre.Bergel(a)inria.fr>: > Frankly speaking, I am left unconvinced that allowing argument to be > writable will increase the quality of Pharo. > me too. It would be better to keep distinction between arguments and temps and do not rely on implementation. I think that in stack-based VM , an assignable arguments could be problematic, because if you want to restart a method, you will be unable to recover original values because they are not copied in context but lying on stack. > Alexandre > > > On 27 Dec 2008, at 13:31, David Pennell wrote: > >> Its handy to at least have the option of making args writable in >> order to support implementing languages like Javascript on top of >> the bytecode set. >> >> -david >> >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <yoshiki(a)vpri.org> >> wrote: >> At Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:24:02 -0800, >> Vassili Bykov wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima >> <yoshiki(a)vpri.org> wrote: >> > > At Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:11:16 +0100, >> > > Michael Rueger wrote: >> > >> >> > >> What really is the convenience of modifying an argument? Having >> not to >> > >> think up another name? I never understood this argument >> especially if >> > >> you need to use the original value of the argument in several >> places. >> > > >> > > If you can think of an argument as a "temp initialized by the >> > > caller" (like C), that kind of unifies the args and temps and >> would >> > > reduce the implementation complexity. In *some cases* it would >> reduce >> > > the lines of code in the user land. >> > >> > Or alternatively one can think of a temp as an argument of an >> invisible block, >> > >> > | foo | >> > foo := 3. >> > ... >> > >> > being a form of >> > >> > [:foo | ...] value: 3. >> >> If args are assignable, and yes you can unify methods and blocks. >> >> But I'm pretty much convinced that debugged context being >> restartable (by making args readonly) is important in practice. >> >> -- Yoshiki >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Dec. 29, 2008