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

[Pharo-project] cant squeak map

by Sebastian Sastre

hi there, I've updated an image from server and it become unable to load stuff from squeak map. Looks it reachs a endless recursion about MIME cheers, sebastian

March 11, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions

by Nicolas Cellier

Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > Nicolas, > > I would read > > void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback)(int mode,int type,const > char *file,int line) > > as a pointer to a function taking four arguments and returning nothing. > That is _not_ what OpenSSL defines. With the added void argument, it looks to me like the callback takes no > arguments and returns nothing. > > I would expect what you described to look more like > > (void* (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback)(int mode,int type,const > char *file,int line)) F(void); > > I prefer to "hide" function pointers using type definitions to make them clear. You mention a function > named F, but the given syntax does not name it. It does look like any prototype I have seen, and it's not a > typedef, unless that is happening implicitly?? > > Bill > I introduced a named return value F just for trying to explain. F is the return value, so it is anonymous. This is a valid syntax for a function returning a pointer to a function. But of course my explanation was plain wrong... Sorry. I inverted the arguments... So here is a better explanation. 0) CRYPTO_get_locking_callback is the name of the function. It is not a typedef. 1) CRYPTO_get_locking_callback is a function taking no argument (void) 2) it returns a pointer to a function which 2.a) return nothing (void) 2.b) takes four arguments int mode,int type,const char *file,int line)) I can read C, but const and function pointer are ones I will fail to parse 50% of time... Feel like I must not be alone... This is C anyway... It's not that easy to speak to a dumb compiler, so that he finally understands how to optimize that code! And not to optimize that code is of course not an option... Nicolas > -----Original Message----- > From: pharo-project-bounces@... > [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@...] On Behalf > Of Nicolas Cellier > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:14 PM > To: pharo-project@... > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions > > Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > > > > Nicolas, > > > > Fair enough, but it's the rest of the expression that bothers me - what does > the second argument sequence do? > > > > Bill > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but i'll tell how I read this syntax: > > CRYPTO_get_locking_callback is a function taking four arguments > (int mode,int type,const char *file,int line). > > CRYPTO_get_locking_callback will return a pointer to a function, say F. > This function F does take no argument and return no result. > void F(void). > > Nicolas > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pharo-project-bounces@... > > [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@...] On Behalf > > Of Nicolas Cellier > > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:23 PM > > To: pharo-project@... > > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions > > > > Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > > gmane want me to snip... > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@... > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

March 11, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Nicolas, I would read void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback)(int mode,int type,const char *file,int line) as a pointer to a function taking four arguments and returning nothing. That is _not_ what OpenSSL defines. With the added void argument, it looks to me like the callback takes no arguments and returns nothing. I would expect what you described to look more like (void* (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback)(int mode,int type,const char *file,int line)) F(void); I prefer to "hide" function pointers using type definitions to make them clear. You mention a function named F, but the given syntax does not name it. It does look like any prototype I have seen, and it's not a typedef, unless that is happening implicitly?? Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Nicolas Cellier Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:14 PM To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > Nicolas, > > Fair enough, but it's the rest of the expression that bothers me - what does the second argument sequence do? > > Bill > I'm not sure I understand the question, but i'll tell how I read this syntax: CRYPTO_get_locking_callback is a function taking four arguments (int mode,int type,const char *file,int line). CRYPTO_get_locking_callback will return a pointer to a function, say F. This function F does take no argument and return no result. void F(void). Nicolas > -----Original Message----- > From: pharo-project-bounces@... > [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@...] On Behalf > Of Nicolas Cellier > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:23 PM > To: pharo-project@... > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions > > Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > gmane want me to snip... _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

March 10, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions

by Nicolas Cellier

Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > Nicolas, > > Fair enough, but it's the rest of the expression that bothers me - what does the second argument sequence do? > > Bill > I'm not sure I understand the question, but i'll tell how I read this syntax: CRYPTO_get_locking_callback is a function taking four arguments (int mode,int type,const char *file,int line). CRYPTO_get_locking_callback will return a pointer to a function, say F. This function F does take no argument and return no result. void F(void). Nicolas > -----Original Message----- > From: pharo-project-bounces@... > [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@...] On Behalf > Of Nicolas Cellier > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:23 PM > To: pharo-project@... > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions > > Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > gmane want me to snip...

March 10, 2009

[Pharo-project] FAMIXAssociation

by Alexandre Bergel

Dear list, Why an association has a previous and a next ? What are these variables for? Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

March 10, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Nicolas, Fair enough, but it's the rest of the expression that bothers me - what does the second argument sequence do? Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Nicolas Cellier Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:23 PM To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > Hello all, > > Do you have any thoughts on whether a wrapper for OpenSSL should be a plugin or based on FFI/Alien? Would > blocking calls be best handled by using OS threads or non-blocking sockets? In either case, I would > envision using semaphores to block only the calling Process instance. > > Loosely related, can you understand (and explain to me - perhaps the hard part<g>) the following syntax: > > void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback(void))(int mode,int type,const char > *file,int line); > > It looks to me like a shotgun wedding of an incomplete typedef of a function pointer type and a function > prototype. Any ideas? > > Bill > Doesn't the CRYPTO_get_locking_callback function returns a pointer to a function with no argument (void) and no return value (void), or something like that ? Nicolas _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

March 10, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Unicode test II

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Michael Rueger <m.rueger(a)acm.org> wrote: > Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> keyValue: -61 >> charCode: 225 >> scanCode: -61 >> >> Thanks! > > OK, no idea (yet) how these values happen, but could you be so kind to file > in the attached change and see if that works? > No :( Still having the same error. Any idea? let me know how can I help. Cheers, Mariano > > Thanks > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

March 10, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions

by Nicolas Cellier

Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@...> writes: > > Hello all, > > Do you have any thoughts on whether a wrapper for OpenSSL should be a plugin or based on FFI/Alien? Would > blocking calls be best handled by using OS threads or non-blocking sockets? In either case, I would > envision using semaphores to block only the calling Process instance. > > Loosely related, can you understand (and explain to me - perhaps the hard part<g>) the following syntax: > > void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback(void))(int mode,int type,const char > *file,int line); > > It looks to me like a shotgun wedding of an incomplete typedef of a function pointer type and a function > prototype. Any ideas? > > Bill > Doesn't the CRYPTO_get_locking_callback function returns a pointer to a function with no argument (void) and no return value (void), or something like that ? Nicolas

March 10, 2009

[Pharo-project] OpenSSL - a couple of questions

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Hello all, Do you have any thoughts on whether a wrapper for OpenSSL should be a plugin or based on FFI/Alien? Would blocking calls be best handled by using OS threads or non-blocking sockets? In either case, I would envision using semaphores to block only the calling Process instance. Loosely related, can you understand (and explain to me - perhaps the hard part<g>) the following syntax: void (*CRYPTO_get_locking_callback(void))(int mode,int type,const char *file,int line); It looks to me like a shotgun wedding of an incomplete typedef of a function pointer type and a function prototype. Any ideas? Bill

March 10, 2009

[Pharo-project] new issues 635, 636 and 637

by Pavel Krivanek

This simple issues remove some members of Undeclared. The rest of members can be removed if you close and recreate all default windows. Together with issue 467 it can make Pharo-Core image cleaner. -- Pavel

March 10, 2009