December 2009 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] When writing comment, do you use 1st person?

by Martin McClure

Adrian Kuhn wrote: > Martin McClure <martin@...> writes: > >> Actually, I usually do prefer to use first person when writing Smalltalk >> comments. I find that anthropomorphizing objects helps to think in an >> object-oriented way. > > Thanks everyone for all the answers so far! > > One of the things that keep confusing me is whether the I refers to the class, > the object or (in a method comment) to the method or even the method > activation? For example in Randal's example, there it is the the behavior > *class* speaking in first person. Whereas to my understanding in > *object*-oriented programming the objects should talk be first person (not the > classes). > > Even more confusing, I have also seen comments where the it was the object or > the methods. Or most confusing, an amalgamation of both, as eg in "I return my > first element" where to be precise the method activation returns the first > element of the object. So shouldn't it either be "(When activiated) Returns my > first element" or "I return the first element of my reciever"? > > This is not an academic example. When I started to write comments for SUnit, I > got actually confused. When writing (instance/class) methods comments, to whom > does the "I" refer to? > Good points. Existing comments are not always consistent. In my opinion, "I" should always refer to an object. Which object? "Self" within the current context. In an instance-side method comment, "I" is the receiver of the message. In a class-side method comment, "I" is the class. In a class comment, it's a little less clear, but probably "I" should be the class in that case. I'd probably write the above example imperatively, something like "Answer my first element". In Smalltalk, I also tend to prefer "answer" over "return", and I tend to talk about "messages" instead of "methods" unless explicitly dealing with method objects. Regards, -Martin

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] When writing comment, do you use 1st person?

by Adrian Kuhn

Martin McClure <martin@...> writes: > Actually, I usually do prefer to use first person when writing Smalltalk > comments. I find that anthropomorphizing objects helps to think in an > object-oriented way. Thanks everyone for all the answers so far! One of the things that keep confusing me is whether the I refers to the class, the object or (in a method comment) to the method or even the method activation? For example in Randal's example, there it is the the behavior *class* speaking in first person. Whereas to my understanding in *object*-oriented programming the objects should talk be first person (not the classes). Even more confusing, I have also seen comments where the it was the object or the methods. Or most confusing, an amalgamation of both, as eg in "I return my first element" where to be precise the method activation returns the first element of the object. So shouldn't it either be "(When activiated) Returns my first element" or "I return the first element of my reciever"? This is not an academic example. When I started to write comments for SUnit, I got actually confused. When writing (instance/class) methods comments, to whom does the "I" refer to? --AA

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] Re: Some questions about new traits (Crismas edition) ; )

by Igor Stasenko

2009/12/28 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab(a)gmx.de>: > Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> 1. diff the number of lines between existing traits implementation & yours >> ? > > It's a bit tricky to get a precise comparison, since Berne traits reuse > various methods across Kernel-Classes and Traits. OTOH, there are many > methods that will be removed from Kernel due to completely unnecessary > complexities. I think the real comparison can only be done if you look at > the totals of Kernel+[Nano]Traits before and after and since I haven't done > the cleanup yet there is a bit of a problem in comparing this precisely. But > you give an idea, here is a bit of data measured as follows: > > #('Traits' 'Traits-Kernel' 'Traits-Kernel-Traits' 'Traits-Composition' > 'NanoTraits-Kernel' 'NanoTraits-Tests') do:[:pkgName| | pkg | > Â Â Â Â pkg := PackageInfo named: pkgName. > Â Â Â Â Transcript cr; show: pkg name; > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â tab; show: pkg classes size; > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â tab; show: pkg methods size. > ]. > > Package Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Classes Â Â Â Â Methods > Traits Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 59 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 873 > Traits-Kernel Â Â Â Â Â 22 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 343 > Traits-Kernel-Traits Â Â 17 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 215 > Traits-Composition Â Â Â 7 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 127 > NanoTraits-Kernel Â Â Â 9 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 190 > NanoTraits-Tests Â Â Â Â 9 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 122 > oh, that's quite a big difference. I am curious, is it because of simpler implementation or because of smaller feature set? > The "meat" for NanoTraits is 9 classes and 190 methods And, after installing > NanoTraits there will be many other methods removed in Behavior and friends > which are only the result of unnecessary complexity in Berned traits. It > will be *significantly* simpler by any measures and unloadable. > >> 2. tools support, MC, Browser etc ? > > Same as before. Slightly better on older systems (i.e., 3.8 based) because > browsers can cope with traits as is and mostly don't need special support > (i.e., using #classSide etc). > >> 3. are there some common protocols with old traits, so one could use >> traits for metaprogramming? > > As far as black-box reuse is concerned, there is no difference at all. There > is also plenty of common stuff for the internals but it's very hard to know > which protocols a particular client would use. > Well, browser should use some protocol to distingush between traits & classes, trait methods and regular ones etc.. As well as MC, SystemNotifier , changesets etc. Do you plan to fully adopt new traits in trunk (means completely replacing current ones, of course)? >> I haven't time to take a look at your code. But if it is smaller & >> less complex than current version, i will vote for it. > > Try it. Load it via: > > (Installer repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/NanoTraits') > Â Â Â Â install: 'NanoTraits-Kernel'; > Â Â Â Â install: 'NanoTraits-Tests'. > > then install it using: > > Â Â Â Â NanoTrait install. > > (WARNING: Be prepared to throw the image away if something goes wrong) > >> I just have some concerns about common protocols, so developers could >> use traits in both pharo & squeak without need of refactoring. > > Fair enough. I don't think there's much difficulty as far as extending the > existing protocols go. We could even add compatibility traits > (TCompilingBehavior etc) that model the old structure if people want to add > extension methods to those. > AFAIK, Pharo cleaned-up some stuff , removed this particular trait. I am however, think that putting traits in use for core classes having one VERY IMPORTANT aspect, that in this way we can decompose a bloated protocol(s) into a number a smaller ones, with well-distinguished roles, aside of code reuse. > And hey, my code is always MIT, so if the Pharo folks are interested, tell > them they're more than welcome to use and enhance it. The squeaksource > repository is world-writable. Aye, i CC this conversation to pharo list. Personally, amount of code is the major criteria for me to choose from. Especially for things in Kernel. And especially, if it doesn't having heavy tradeoffs. > > Cheers, > Â - Andreas > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Dec. 28, 2009

[Pharo-project] How to get item under a menu?

by Adrian Kuhn

How can I get the item under a menu? TestRunner is built with the ToolBuilder. The lists are specified with the pluggableListSpec and I can provide a selector that builds the menu. When building the menu I can add selector for the menu entries. As it seems, the item unter the menu is never known to me. Neither when building the menu nor when performing a menu item action. So what I did is the following (an obvious hack) buildMenu: aMenu | morph index | morph := thisContext sender receiver; index := morph rowAtLocation: Sensor currentPoint. itemUnderMenu := list at: index ifAbsent: nil. itemUnderMenu ifNil: [ ^ aMenu ]. ^ aMenu title: itemUnderMenu; add: 'action' action: #action; yourself action self performActionWith: itemUnderMenu Can I get this done without a thisContext hack? --AA

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] akuhn/SUnit, chrisma edition :)

by Adrian Kuhn

Name: SUnitGUI-AdrianKuhn.58 Author: AdrianKuhn Time: 28 December 2009, 4:21:29 am UUID: 88a3fdcc-e794-4666-8f50-80be6c8afcf4 Ancestors: SUnitGUI-AdrianKuhn.57 Context menu for failures and errors. When you *right* click on a failure or error then a menu should show up. The menu offers to browse or debug the defect (as requested by Mariano Martinez Peck on the mailing list). As before, when you *left* click on a failure or error then it open ins the debugger.

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] When writing comment, do you use 1st person?

by Igor Stasenko

2009/12/28 Martin McClure <martin(a)hand2mouse.com>: > Adrian Kuhn wrote: >> I know that originally all Smalltalk comments used 1st person. What is >> Â your take on that? > > Martin always writes in first person. :-) > > Actually, I usually do prefer to use first person when writing Smalltalk > comments. I find that anthropomorphizing objects helps to think in an > object-oriented way. > > This bias is built into the language with the keyword "self". > +1 I find it more encouraging for use , when classes has comments written in a 1st person style. Because, psychologically, i feel that i can trust to delegate certain tasks to given object, while if i read a 3rd person comments, i am usually think that this is a part of something bigger, which is incomplete (wont work) alone, and so, i should use it carefully. > Regards, > > -Martin > > _______________________________________________ > 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. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] When writing comment, do you use 1st person?

by Martin McClure

Adrian Kuhn wrote: > I know that originally all Smalltalk comments used 1st person. What is > your take on that? Martin always writes in first person. :-) Actually, I usually do prefer to use first person when writing Smalltalk comments. I find that anthropomorphizing objects helps to think in an object-oriented way. This bias is built into the language with the keyword "self". Regards, -Martin

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] When writing comment, do you use 1st person?

by merlyn＠stonehenge.com

>>>>> "HernÃ¡n" == HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> writes: HernÃ¡n> I think the person term in "First person" refers more to a human HernÃ¡n> than any artificial intelligence form, which anyway is methaphysically HernÃ¡n> impossible. And yet, through anthropromorphism, this is exactly how the early Smalltalkers talked and wrote their comments. See the class comment for "Delay", for example: I am the main way that a process may pause for some amount of time. The simplest usage is like this: (Delay forSeconds: 5) wait. Or "Behavior": My instances describe the behavior of other objects. I provide the minimum state necessary for compiling methods, and creating and running instances. Most objects are created as instances of the more fully supported subclass, Class, but I am a good starting point for providing instance-specific behavior (as in Metaclass). I can imagine these comments date back to the original ST80 image. The question on the table is, should this practice continue. I vote yes. I found this style of comments a refreshing change, and also forced people into thinking about what a class *does*, not just what it *holds*. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn(a)stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] When writing comment, do you use 1st person?

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

Hi Adrian, I think the person term in "First person" refers more to a human than any artificial intelligence form, which anyway is methaphysically impossible. Cheers, HernÃ¡n 2009/12/27 Adrian Kuhn <akuhn(a)iam.unibe.ch>: > I know that originally all Smalltalk comments used 1st person. What is > Â your take on that? > > --AA > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Dec. 28, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] akuhn/SUnit, christmas edition :)

by Adrian Kuhn

Name: SUnit-AdrianKuhn.115 Author: AdrianKuhn Time: 28 December 2009, 2:22:16 am UUID: 21af8078-0c75-4323-89aa-5f0142fa09d4 Ancestors: SUnit-AdrianKuhn.114 Takes #expectedFailure into account. As required by Mariano Martinez Peck on the mailing list. He uses the #expectedFailure method to dynamically create expected failures, rather than a fixed set of failures as is stored in stored history.

Dec. 28, 2009