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

[Pharo-project] Fwd: [Squeak-fr] durationToRun

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Begin forwarded message: > From: StÃ©phane Rollandin <hepta(a)zogotounga.net> > Date: June 15, 2009 9:32:54 AM CEDT > To: Squeak in french / Squeak en franÃ§ais <squeak-fr(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > > Subject: Re: [Squeak-fr] durationToRun > Reply-To: Squeak in french / Squeak en franÃ§ais <squeak-fr(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > > > [3500 milliSeconds asDelay wait] durationToRun > > donne 0:00:00:00.3501 sur Squeak3.10.2, mais donne le format correct > 0:00:00:03.5 sur Squeak3.8.2. > > le problÃ¨me vient de > > Duration class>> > days: days hours: hours minutes: minutes seconds: seconds > nanoSeconds: nanos > > ^ self seconds: ((days * SecondsInDay) > + (hours * SecondsInHour) > + (minutes * SecondsInMinute) > + seconds) > nanoSeconds: nanos > > > ... qui est faux, car les nanoseconds ne participent pas au calcul > des seconds. > > la version prÃ©cÃ©dente est: > > days: days hours: hours minutes: minutes seconds: seconds > nanoSeconds: nanos > > ^ self nanoSeconds: > ( ( (days * SecondsInDay) > + (hours * SecondsInHour) > + (minutes * SecondsInMinute) > + seconds ) * NanosInSecond ) > + nanos. > > > et lÃ Ã§a marche. > > Stef > > > _______________________________________________ > Squeak-fr mailing list > Squeak-fr(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/squeak-fr >

June 15, 2009

[Pharo-project] Fwd: [ANN] 10340

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Begin forwarded message: > From: pharo-project-owner(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Date: June 14, 2009 11:29:07 PM CEDT > To: stephane.ducasse(a)smalltalk.fr > Subject: [ANN] 10340 > > You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has > been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are > being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at > pharo-project-owner(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr. > > > From: StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)smalltalk.fr> > Date: June 14, 2009 11:28:52 PM CEDT > To: Pharo Development <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> > Subject: [ANN] 10340 > > > Hi > > issue 135: initialize calling super initialize partly integrated (A - > > Morph package) > Thanks alain for this job. > > Stef > > >

June 14, 2009

[Pharo-project] idea to have a better methodFinder :)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi the methodFInder hard codes the methods that should not be executed. Now with pragma we should be able to have a fully dynamic method finder where nothing is hardcoded. If somebody wants to give a try it would be great because MF is a cool tool. Now too static. Stef

June 14, 2009

[Pharo-project] [Off Topic] Looking for english "correspondants" for my boys

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi guys I have two boys 11 and 8 years old which would like to talk english with some other boys. So I'm looking for kids that would like to exchange emails or visit (later) with mine :) Uk would be cool since we are at Lille. Stef

June 14, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] 10337

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

ok I will focus first on the initialize. Stef On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:21 PM, Alain Plantec wrote: > Alain Plantec a Ã©crit : >> StÃ©phane Ducasse a Ã©crit : >>> ok I prefer that than a merging bug. >>> >> the LongTestCase >>#DecompilerTests method is touched by the >> BookMorph >> removal. >> Unfortunately, the class LongTestCase is unpackaged. > oups, this is the class DecompilerTests that is unpackaged and the > method DecompilerTests>>decompilerDiscrepancies which is touched by > the > BookMorph removal. >> I guess that is is the reason why it was not in the slice. >> -> new issue http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=888 >> Alain >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

June 14, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] 10337

by Alain Plantec

Alain Plantec a Ã©crit : > StÃ©phane Ducasse a Ã©crit : >> ok I prefer that than a merging bug. >> > the LongTestCase >>#DecompilerTests method is touched by the BookMorph > removal. > Unfortunately, the class LongTestCase is unpackaged. oups, this is the class DecompilerTests that is unpackaged and the method DecompilerTests>>decompilerDiscrepancies which is touched by the BookMorph removal. > I guess that is is the reason why it was not in the slice. > -> new issue http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=888 > Alain > > >

June 14, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] 10337

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Ok I will check that now with the initialize :) On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Alain Plantec wrote: > StÃ©phane Ducasse a Ã©crit : >> ok I prefer that than a merging bug. >> > the LongTestCase >>#DecompilerTests method is touched by the BookMorph > removal. > Unfortunately, the class LongTestCase is unpackaged. > I guess that is is the reason why it was not in the slice. > -> new issue http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=888 > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

June 14, 2009

[Pharo-project] [ANN] 10339 license cleaning

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Issue 886: License cleaning Rewrite FileDirectory >> oldFileOrNoneNamed: , Float >> /, DictionaryTest >> testIncludesAssociationNoValue. Tx Gabriel

June 14, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] 10337

by Alain Plantec

StÃ©phane Ducasse a Ã©crit : > ok I prefer that than a merging bug. > the LongTestCase >>#DecompilerTests method is touched by the BookMorph removal. Unfortunately, the class LongTestCase is unpackaged. I guess that is is the reason why it was not in the slice. -> new issue http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=888 Alain

June 14, 2009

[Pharo-project] A process point: how to submit your changes

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

hi guys When you submit a fix do not merge it with items in the inbox. Why? because it forces us to - find the slice that defined the packages you merged with - integrate this fix too. So it binds fixes together and this is not good. For example we cannot integrate a simple fix ( if it merged with a more complex one) without thinking too much. Stef

June 14, 2009