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

Re: [Pharo-project] Logging package does not compile

by FranÃ§ois Tanguy

Le 8 juin 09 Ã 03:42, Keith Hodges a Ã©crit : > FranÃ§ois Tanguy wrote: >> Hello, >> >> did anyone ever tried to load the "Logging" package from Keith >> Hodges ? >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2008-December/132923… >> >> In pharo, the following method does not compile. >> >> testFilter: aMessage >> | lowerString | >> lowerString := aMessage value value asLowercase. >> ^(self searchString asString substrings allSatisfy: [:sub | >> sub := (sub asLowercase) replaceAll: $_ with: (Character space). >> ((sub first = $-) and: [(lowerString includesSubString: sub >> allButFirst) not]) or: >> [(sub first = $+) and: [lowerString includesSubString: sub >> allButFirst]] or: >> [lowerString includesSubString: sub]]) >> >> It is easy to fix by using an extra variable. >> My question, should we ask Keith to fix this method so that this >> package would be "pharo loadable" ? >> >> FranÃ§ois > You dont have to ask me to fix it, all of my projects are open > access. I > look forward to receiving contributions that will ensure things are > compatible. I have commited the fix. FranÃ§ois > > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About EndOfStream notification [was Streams - #nextLine]

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Nicolas, Adding #nextAvailable: hurts nothing, but changing #next: (and #next too) will break existing code. In VW, it is only #next that has the silent failure trap, and while Cincom was willing to consider a change, they ultimately declined to make it. I am convinced that Dolphin gets it right, but I would be surprised to see us adopt its behavior. I would be thrilled if we did so, but doubt it will happen. Failing such breaking changes, I need to create a way to have my code work, which is why I started adding my own methods. Your pluggable exception/defaultAction idea is worth a shot. Some simple testing should show whether it can preserve current behavior and throw exceptions, respectively. I think I heard Stef as much as say he would support it if it does serve both masters. Stef? 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, June 09, 2009 2:34 AM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] About EndOfStream notification [was Streams - #nextLine] Bill, What I propose is to let programmer decide whether he will use Exception or not on endOfStream. And if he choose Exception, I underline that a defaultAction answering nil is not a panacea. But that defaultAction would still be an option if it solves your problem. Not sure my proposition does really solve the #next: problem you raised, indeed. The solution could be independant of endOfStream handling for this one. I support your request of creating a VW/Dolphin compatible #nextAvailable: and changing #next: to raise a NotEnoughElementAvailableError (maybe a subclass of EndOfStreamError). We would have a few package incompatibility, but, on ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser des oeufs... But I'm not convinced by the idea of duplicating the whole method protocol. Nor on duplicating the whole Stream class hierarchy, it's too big. That's were a classic delegation pattern can help (pluggable endOfStream). Of course, Trait composition is another option, and dynamic (on the fly) composition would be fun experimenting (as opposed to Static class definition). Keeping Traits as independant code units as possible is an interesting challenge (to explore the limits of such design). Nicolas 2009/6/9 Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu>: > > On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > >> There are better examples where I want Exceptions, so I'd like the >> choice to be in programmers hands. >> - 1) Raising an EndOfStream Exception (and not a Notification as I >> suggested) should be optional >> - 2) The Exception should not have a default action. > > To add emphasis: it can't have a default action or it is not doing its job. > > >> The simple thing to do is to add an endOfStreamAction >> instanceVariable to Stream or ReadStream. >> If a read past end is attempted, then ^endOfStreamAction value. >> >> nil value = nil, so letting this inst var uninitialized will lead to >> backward compatibility (at minimal cost concerning efficieny!). >> filling the inst var with a block comes to mind immediately, and >> among natural choice is: >> Stream>>willSignalEndOfStream >> Â Â Â self endOfStreamAction: [EndOfStream signal] >> >> There might be more work for Stream wrappers, but that sounds a cheap >> and efficient idea to reconcile both worlds. >> >> What will protect above code example from an internal low level >> EndOfStream? >> Nothing, but the fact that programmers using explicitely >> #willSignalEndOfStream will know what they do! >> Either they will protect with a handling block, or advertise enough >> that the code might generate spurious EndOfStream on malformed >> inputs... > > I hesitate to call the exceptions spurious; in situations where they would be described as such, I generally would use #nextAvailable: and write code that won't blow up. Â Exceptions do a very important job: they carry information from the point of detection of a problem to a place (often far removed on the stack) where a corrective action can be reasonably applied. > > To (attempt) to paraphrase your idea, you are proposing to remove the default action from EndOfStream, replacing that blunting of exceptions with an uninitialized endOfStreamAction instance variable that defalts to the same behavior, and can be set to ensure raising of exceptions. Â Fair? > > This is certainly worth a try. Â For my part, the cost would be I need to ensure that I set the exception behavior on every stream I create vs. ensuring I use a different set of methods. Â It's probably no worse, and maybe easier to enforce. Â I will generally hide ReadStream on: behind a helper, #readStream, so I could just as easily use #readStreamRobust to create the stream and activate exceptions. Â Sorry to press this so hard, but I cannot afford to have things breaking w/o telling me. Â At best, that wastes time to track down mysterious failures, and worse, it can be dangerous. Â It's not unlike the practice of building electronic enclosures with lots of exposed grounded metal. Â It took me a while to gain comfort with it, but the idea is that if a wire comes loose, it hits ground, pulls a breaker, and goes into a safe mode and gets attention as a side effect. > > Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About super initialize

by Alain Plantec

Lukas Renggli a Ã©crit : >> I do not think that we will hev speed impact but yes we should run that. >> Still I have the impression that for direct subclasses of Object super >> initialize is unnecessary >> > > If you follow this pattern refactoring code (moving classes in > hierarchies) can easily introduce bugs. Furthermore it is already > complicated enough for beginners to know when to call super initialize > and when not (the class side). So I would strive for the simplest and > most uniform solution --- always call super initialize. > > I could not say it better, this is exactly what I think. alain

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo Inbox Conflict

by Damien Cassou

2009/6/9 Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com>: > Should I proceed with the saving? Yes, that's ok -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] swapMouseButtons doesn't work

by Damien Cassou

2009/6/8 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: > I don't get it. I see Pharo 9.06.1 which is based on 10234 and this is the > implementation: In a stock pharo0.1-10324dev09.06.1, I have: Preferences>>swapMouseButtons ^ self valueOfFlag: #swapMouseButtons ifAbsent: [ OSPlatform current platformFamily ~= #Windows ] I don't know what you are looking at :-) -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] what happened to pretty-print?

by Oscar Nierstrasz

OK, I updated pharo0.1-10324dev09.06.1 to 10331. (Or should I update pharo-core?) Pretty-print is still missing when I right-click on the method source pane. View...>Pretty Print now generates the following error: "Compiler>>format:in:notifying:contentsSymbol: has been deprecated. colorWhenPrettyPrintingAsBeenRemoved Select Proceed to continue, or close this window to cancel the operation." If I select Proceed, it does pretty-print, but I cannot save the pretty-printed version! Pasting code from an external editor is still broken. - on On Jun 8, 2009, at 22:36, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/list?thanks=870 > > oscar can you check the new update and let me know if this is > working :) > 10331 should fix that ;) > > > Alain can you check and next time attach a cs or push it into the > inbox else I have to retype > or fix the bad characters :) > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About EndOfStream notification [was Streams - #nextLine]

by Nicolas Cellier

Bill, What I propose is to let programmer decide whether he will use Exception or not on endOfStream. And if he choose Exception, I underline that a defaultAction answering nil is not a panacea. But that defaultAction would still be an option if it solves your problem. Not sure my proposition does really solve the #next: problem you raised, indeed. The solution could be independant of endOfStream handling for this one. I support your request of creating a VW/Dolphin compatible #nextAvailable: and changing #next: to raise a NotEnoughElementAvailableError (maybe a subclass of EndOfStreamError). We would have a few package incompatibility, but, on ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser des oeufs... But I'm not convinced by the idea of duplicating the whole method protocol. Nor on duplicating the whole Stream class hierarchy, it's too big. That's were a classic delegation pattern can help (pluggable endOfStream). Of course, Trait composition is another option, and dynamic (on the fly) composition would be fun experimenting (as opposed to Static class definition). Keeping Traits as independant code units as possible is an interesting challenge (to explore the limits of such design). Nicolas 2009/6/9 Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu>: > > On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > >> There are better examples where I want Exceptions, so I'd like the >> choice to be in programmers hands. >> - 1) Raising an EndOfStream Exception (and not a Notification as I >> suggested) should be optional >> - 2) The Exception should not have a default action. > > To add emphasis: it can't have a default action or it is not doing its job. > > >> The simple thing to do is to add an endOfStreamAction instanceVariable >> to Stream or ReadStream. >> If a read past end is attempted, then ^endOfStreamAction value. >> >> nil value = nil, so letting this inst var uninitialized will lead to >> backward compatibility (at minimal cost concerning efficieny!). >> filling the inst var with a block comes to mind immediately, and among >> natural choice is: >> Stream>>willSignalEndOfStream >> Â Â Â self endOfStreamAction: [EndOfStream signal] >> >> There might be more work for Stream wrappers, but that sounds a cheap >> and efficient idea to reconcile both worlds. >> >> What will protect above code example from an internal low level >> EndOfStream? >> Nothing, but the fact that programmers using explicitely >> #willSignalEndOfStream will know what they do! >> Either they will protect with a handling block, or advertise enough >> that the code might generate spurious EndOfStream on malformed >> inputs... > > I hesitate to call the exceptions spurious; in situations where they would be described as such, I generally would use #nextAvailable: and write code that won't blow up. Â Exceptions do a very important job: they carry information from the point of detection of a problem to a place (often far removed on the stack) where a corrective action can be reasonably applied. > > To (attempt) to paraphrase your idea, you are proposing to remove the default action from EndOfStream, replacing that blunting of exceptions with an uninitialized endOfStreamAction instance variable that defalts to the same behavior, and can be set to ensure raising of exceptions. Â Fair? > > This is certainly worth a try. Â For my part, the cost would be I need to ensure that I set the exception behavior on every stream I create vs. ensuring I use a different set of methods. Â It's probably no worse, and maybe easier to enforce. Â I will generally hide ReadStream on: behind a helper, #readStream, so I could just as easily use #readStreamRobust to create the stream and activate exceptions. Â Sorry to press this so hard, but I cannot afford to have things breaking w/o telling me. Â At best, that wastes time to track down mysterious failures, and worse, it can be dangerous. Â It's not unlike the practice of building electronic enclosures with lots of exposed grounded metal. Â It took me a while to gain comfort with it, but the idea is that if a wire comes loose, it hits ground, pulls a breaker, and goes into a safe mode and gets attention as a side effect. > > Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About super initialize

by Lukas Renggli

> I do not think that we will hev speed impact but yes we should run that. > Still I have the impression that for direct subclasses of Object super > initialize is unnecessary If you follow this pattern refactoring code (moving classes in hierarchies) can easily introduce bugs. Furthermore it is already complicated enough for beginners to know when to call super initialize and when not (the class side). So I would strive for the simplest and most uniform solution --- always call super initialize. In Seaside we always call super initialize, even if the initialize method is empty. This is more uniform and makes refactoring easier. The only exception for this rule is the single direct subclass of Object we have, WAObject. This class does not call super initialize solely for portability reasons, no other Smalltalk implements #initialize on Object. Of course we have various Lint rules that check the initialize patterns in the Seaside code. I guess they could be (adapted and) run on Pharo code too. If you want me to run them, let me know and I can post a list of the offending methods. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Syntax error loading Coral

by Luc Fabresse

2009/6/9 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> > pharo scripts to rename iPhoto pictures??? > Writing scripts using Pharo (instead of Bash, Ruby,...) is the objective of Coral. So, Coral could be used to rename files in the future. > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < > stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I tried to load Coral in the latest dev image using ScriptLoader >> > and I got a syntax error in >> > "UnixProcess>>argsAsFlatArrayAndOffsets:". I guess it is an UTF-8 >> > problem. >> > Any ideas for a solution ? >> >> Not right on top of my head but this is cool that you tried it. I >> want to write pharo scripts >> to rename my iPhoto pictures and lot more. >> >> > >> > #Luc >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

June 9, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About EndOfStream notification [was Streams - #nextLine]

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > There are better examples where I want Exceptions, so I'd like the > choice to be in programmers hands. > - 1) Raising an EndOfStream Exception (and not a Notification as I > suggested) should be optional > - 2) The Exception should not have a default action. To add emphasis: it can't have a default action or it is not doing its job. > The simple thing to do is to add an endOfStreamAction instanceVariable > to Stream or ReadStream. > If a read past end is attempted, then ^endOfStreamAction value. > > nil value = nil, so letting this inst var uninitialized will lead to > backward compatibility (at minimal cost concerning efficieny!). > filling the inst var with a block comes to mind immediately, and among > natural choice is: > Stream>>willSignalEndOfStream > self endOfStreamAction: [EndOfStream signal] > > There might be more work for Stream wrappers, but that sounds a cheap > and efficient idea to reconcile both worlds. > > What will protect above code example from an internal low level > EndOfStream? > Nothing, but the fact that programmers using explicitely > #willSignalEndOfStream will know what they do! > Either they will protect with a handling block, or advertise enough > that the code might generate spurious EndOfStream on malformed > inputs... I hesitate to call the exceptions spurious; in situations where they would be described as such, I generally would use #nextAvailable: and write code that won't blow up. Exceptions do a very important job: they carry information from the point of detection of a problem to a place (often far removed on the stack) where a corrective action can be reasonably applied. To (attempt) to paraphrase your idea, you are proposing to remove the default action from EndOfStream, replacing that blunting of exceptions with an uninitialized endOfStreamAction instance variable that defalts to the same behavior, and can be set to ensure raising of exceptions. Fair? This is certainly worth a try. For my part, the cost would be I need to ensure that I set the exception behavior on every stream I create vs. ensuring I use a different set of methods. It's probably no worse, and maybe easier to enforce. I will generally hide ReadStream on: behind a helper, #readStream, so I could just as easily use #readStreamRobust to create the stream and activate exceptions. Sorry to press this so hard, but I cannot afford to have things breaking w/o telling me. At best, that wastes time to track down mysterious failures, and worse, it can be dangerous. It's not unlike the practice of building electronic enclosures with lots of exposed grounded metal. It took me a while to gain comfort with it, but the idea is that if a wire comes loose, it hits ground, pulls a breaker, and goes into a safe mode and gets attention as a side effect. Bill

June 9, 2009