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

Re: [Pharo-project] Getting started with Seaside 2.9 + pharo

by Daniel P Zepeda

In that case, just go with the Web version of what you downloaded from the Pharo site. That's what I'm using. I also saw the error about something already listening on 8080, I simply ignored it. I think that I 'saved and quit' and started it again, didn't see the error again. I've been doing alright since then. DZ On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Pat Maddox wrote: > actually I don't particularly care about using 2.9 specifically since > I don't know what's in it, and seaside.st still shows 2.8 as the > current version. Really I just want to use the same setup as the cool > kids. > > Pat > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Pat Maddox<pat.maddox(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> I'm trying to get up and running with Seaside & Pharo again. I went >> to pharo's site and downloaded the pharo-web edition. Started it up, >> and it complained about a server already being started on port 8080. >> Did some googling and found >> http://n2.nabble.com/WAKom-and-Seaside-2.9-tp3402356p3405381.html >> which says >> >> This is fixed in Seaside-Adaptors-Comanche-jf.41 if you want to >> update. >> >> Couldn't find Seaside-Adaptors-Comanche in Monticello at all. Turns >> out that it's only for 2.9, and the installed Seaside is 2.8. Okay, >> guess I'll try the dev Pharo and add Seaside myself. This led me to >> http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/LoadOrder but I'm wondering if >> there's a simpler way to install everything I need without having to >> manually click on every single package and load it. >> >> Another thing that's thrown me off is that I read people are using >> the >> "seaside control panel" now, but I haven't found any documentation on >> that. >> >> So far getting set up has been quite frustrating and now I'm looking >> for some help...I want to start developing Seaside 2.9 on Pharo. How >> do I do that? >> >> Thanks, >> Pat >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Getting started with Seaside 2.9 + pharo

by Pat Maddox

actually I don't particularly care about using 2.9 specifically since I don't know what's in it, and seaside.st still shows 2.8 as the current version. Really I just want to use the same setup as the cool kids. Pat On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Pat Maddox<pat.maddox(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm trying to get up and running with Seaside & Pharo again. Â I went > to pharo's site and downloaded the pharo-web edition. Â Started it up, > and it complained about a server already being started on port 8080. > Did some googling and found > http://n2.nabble.com/WAKom-and-Seaside-2.9-tp3402356p3405381.html > which says > > This is fixed in Seaside-Adaptors-Comanche-jf.41 if you want to update. > > Couldn't find Seaside-Adaptors-Comanche in Monticello at all. Â Turns > out that it's only for 2.9, and the installed Seaside is 2.8. Â Okay, > guess I'll try the dev Pharo and add Seaside myself. Â This led me to > http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/LoadOrder Â but I'm wondering if > there's a simpler way to install everything I need without having to > manually click on every single package and load it. > > Another thing that's thrown me off is that I read people are using the > "seaside control panel" now, but I haven't found any documentation on > that. > > So far getting set up has been quite frustrating and now I'm looking > for some help...I want to start developing Seaside 2.9 on Pharo. Â How > do I do that? > > Thanks, > Pat >

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Stef, +1 Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:42 PM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? I could continue.. but i and Wilhelm already stated multiple times, why we think its a wrong way of doing things. I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & smalltalk in general, but just do it in non-intrusive way. I don't want to be peevish here, but things like: >>Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk syntax. >>E.g. >> (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i) indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math capabilities, on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class hierarchy & putting in danger all code which using math functions written so far. Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. I fell sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken. 2009/8/18 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey(a)whidbey.com> >> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT >> To: pharo-project-owner(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> Subject: OverlyComplex >> >> Greetings, >> >> I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me >> and opened ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex. >> >> Â http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072 >> >> >> Note that there are to be three proposals: >> Â removeComplex Â [Issue OverlyComplex] >> Â basicComplex >> Â extendedComplex >> >> SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been >> added to PharoInbox as per >> Â http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute >> >> I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a >> topic/page. >> Can some kind soul help me out? >> >> Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are >> welcomed. >> >> Thanks much, >> -KenD >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex

by Igor Stasenko

If its a pain in the ass for someone with current Complex - remove it. But then you have to ready the answer to people who using it already. I didn't used complex numbers in squeak so far, so my voice couldn't count. 2009/8/19 <csrabak(a)bol.com.br>: > Yes, and besides (from the traffic in this list), IMNHO too little people > participated to claim any consensus. > > Giving the main goals for Pharo, removing Complex by now is an idea I also > vote for. > > This way the Complex>>< discussion gets postponed for a more specific > package centric one (which I undertand will happen in the wiki). > > > > Em 18/08/2009 18:56, StÃ©phane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > > escreveu: > > I sent this mail since I just send automatically private email related > to pharo to the mailing-list. > I do not want to have hidden discussions. > > Now my take on the discussion is the following: > - it was a bit too long and the consensus is not really reached so > these changes are 'suspicious' > - may be removing complex is a good idea. > - I see that introducing < is not really a good point (from your > discussion) > > So I suggest that either we remove complex or we keep it as it is and > there is a ExtendedComplex package outside. > Let me know if my summary makes sense. At least this is the gut > feeling I got. > Stef > > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? >> >> I could continue.. but i and Wi lhelm already stated multiple times, >> why >> we think its a wrong way of doing things. >> I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & >> smalltalk in general, but >> just do it in non-intrusive way. >> >> I don't want to be peevish here, but things like: >> >>>> Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk >>>> syntax. >>>> E.g. >>>> (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i) >> >> indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. >> I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math >> capabilities, >> on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class >> hierarchy & putting in danger >> all code which using math functions written so far. >> >> Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. >> I fe ll sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken. >> >> 2009/8/18 StÃ©phane Ducasse : >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: "Ken.Dickey" >>>> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT >>>> To: pharo-project-owner(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>> Subject: OverlyComplex >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me >>>> and opened >>>> ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex. >>>> >>>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072 >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that there are to be three proposals: >>>> removeComplex [Issue OverlyComplex] >>>> basicComplex >>>> extendedComplex >>>> >>>> SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been >>>> added to >>>> PharoInbox as per >>>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute >>>> >>>> I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a >>>> topic/page. >>>> Can some kind soul help me out? >>>> >>>> Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are >>>> welcomed. >>>> >>>> Thanks much, >>>> -KenD >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: REPOST: Complex Solution Outline

by Igor Stasenko

2009/8/18 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> >> Date: August 18, 2009 2:09:15 AM CEDT >> To: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey(a)whidbey.com> >> Cc: StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> >> Subject: RE: REPOST: Complex Solution Outline >> >> Ken, >> >> Please put this on the wiki; we try to keep the process >> transparent. Â As should be no surprise by now, I question the value >> of $< for complex numbers - I just don't see the point of defining >> one that works so infrequently as this, and I see reasons not to >> offer one at all. Â People knowing their way around floating point >> math and applications of complex variables will know what to do for >> any given comparison based on physical motivations. >> >> Removing things and making packages seems (Stef?) to be a general >> approach to cleaning, so I doubt there will be resistance to that >> idea. >> >> I think the extended complex solution is risky. Â That is not to say >> you should not write it and use it, but it should be separate and >> clearly marked with caveats; I can speak only for myself (and >> probably for Sig), but I would *not* want it in my image. Â Much of >> what you have expressed as concerns about the current implementation >> involves yet another dimension, which is treating the few "nice" >> numbers that exist without roundoff error; it would be an exact and/ >> or symbolic package. Â I think it would yield very little benefit >> from a LOT of work, but you seem to care about it, so it should >> probably be described. Â Even if it never gets built, giving it a >> name would help sort out the various feature demands. >> >> Finally, there is a lot that should be added to this. Â There should >> be a GSL or similar FFI or plugin and wrappers to bring the >> elementary and special functions into Pharo. Â That is actually >> bigger than just complex numbers, so it probably deserves its own >> wiki page and plan. >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ken.Dickey [mailto:Ken.Dickey@whidbey.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:14 PM >> To: Schwab,Wilhelm K >> Subject: REPOST: Complex Solution Outline >> >> Bill, >> >> Feedback appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> -KenD >> VVV==============unComplex.txt================VVV >> INTRODUCTION >> >> The current Complex class is not carrying its weight in the Pharo- >> Core image. >> It appears to be little used and has some serious integration >> problems with the numeric classes. >> >> This proposal has three parts, removeComplex, basicComplex, and >> extendedComplex. >> >> The removeComplex package removes the Complex class and associated >> code from the current (beta1) image. >> >> The basicComplex package adds Complex back with some additional >> changes to fix some of the integration problems, but leaves out some >> mathematical properties to assure backward compatability. >> >> The extendedComplex package makes the Complex number implemantation >> more complete mathematicaly at the expense of backward code >> compatability and may break some software. Â Caveat programmer. >> >> Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk syntax. >> E.g. >> Â (3 + 1/2i) --> Â (0 - 2i) Â NOT Â (3 + (1/2)i) >> >> >> >> PROBLEMS >> >> In mathematics, type Complex is a superset of type Real, but in >> Pharo the class Complex is unrelated to subclasses of Number. Â This >> causes some common expectations to be disappointed. Â In particular, >> the following patterns break >> down: >> >> [1] Â If (A=a) and (B=b) and (A<B) then (a<b) [2] Â A squared sqrt = A >> [3] Â A isNumber => (A class) isKindOf: Number >> >> [1] | A a B b } >> Â A := 0. >> Â a := A + 0i. >> Â B := 1. >> Â b := B asComplex. >> Â A = a. "true" >> Â B = b. "true" >> Â A < B. "true" >> Â a < b. "ERROR" >> You can put the Complex under Number inheritance tree only if you give a meaningful answer, what is < and > operator means for complex values. Good luck in attempts to stick wings to pink elephant and pretend that it can fly. >> [2] 1i squared. "-1 + 0i" >> Â Â 1i squared sqrt. "ERROR" this can be solved by adding #sqrt method to currently existing Complex: sqrt ^ (self ln /2) exp >> Â Â 1i squared real sqrt. "ERROR" square root of negative value is undefined. as well as division by zero undefined. School math. >> >> [3] (1.2 + (1/2)i) isNumber. "true" >> Â Â (1.2 + (1/2)i) class isKindOf: Number. "false" >> >> In particular, isNumber is used in a number of low-level methods >> which would not deal well with complex numbers. >> >> E.g. FloatArray>> >> Â *= anObject >> Â Â Â Â ^anObject isNumber >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ifTrue:[self primMulScalar: anObject asFloat] >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ifFalse:[self primMulArray: anObject] >> >> +1 to return false for #isNumber method for complex values. It is not a number. And because of that, it can't be compared/ordered using < or > operators. >> SOLUTIONS >> >> >> [A] removeComplex >> >> Removing the Complex code gives more traditional Smalltalk >> expectations. Â In particular this conservative approach yields the >> best code backward compatability because Complex is a relatively >> recent addition to Squeak and was not present in many older >> Smalltalk implementations. Â In particular, problems [1][2][3] cannot >> arise. >> >> >> [B] basicComplex >> >> [1] Can be fixed by adding a "formal" method to Complex with >> selector #< which only compares real numbers (those whose imaginary >> component is zero). >> >> [2] Will remain unaddressed for backward compatability. >> >> [3] I propose to remove the isNumber method from Complex and add >> isNumberOrComplex to both Number, Object, and Complex. Â [Better >> solutions anyone? Better name (isNumeric)?] Â This avoids changing a >> lot of baseline code. >> >> >> [C] extendedComplex >> >> [2] The sqrt and ln methods will extended to return complex results >> for negative numbers. >> feel free to add the complexLn / complexSqrt to existing Number methods. I don't see why existing methods should change. >> Other changes may be cased by adding guard code for users of methods >> which did not formerly return complex results. >> >> >> >> -KenD Â [Ken dot Dickey at Whidbey dot Com] >> ^^^==============unComplex.txt===============^^^ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex

by csrabak＠bol.com.br

Aug. 18, 2009

[Pharo-project] Getting started with Seaside 2.9 + pharo

by Pat Maddox

I'm trying to get up and running with Seaside & Pharo again. I went to pharo's site and downloaded the pharo-web edition. Started it up, and it complained about a server already being started on port 8080. Did some googling and found http://n2.nabble.com/WAKom-and-Seaside-2.9-tp3402356p3405381.html which says This is fixed in Seaside-Adaptors-Comanche-jf.41 if you want to update. Couldn't find Seaside-Adaptors-Comanche in Monticello at all. Turns out that it's only for 2.9, and the installed Seaside is 2.8. Okay, guess I'll try the dev Pharo and add Seaside myself. This led me to http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/LoadOrder but I'm wondering if there's a simpler way to install everything I need without having to manually click on every single package and load it. Another thing that's thrown me off is that I read people are using the "seaside control panel" now, but I haven't found any documentation on that. So far getting set up has been quite frustrating and now I'm looking for some help...I want to start developing Seaside 2.9 on Pharo. How do I do that? Thanks, Pat

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I sent this mail since I just send automatically private email related to pharo to the mailing-list. I do not want to have hidden discussions. Now my take on the discussion is the following: - it was a bit too long and the consensus is not really reached so these changes are 'suspicious' - may be removing complex is a good idea. - I see that introducing < is not really a good point (from your discussion) So I suggest that either we remove complex or we keep it as it is and there is a ExtendedComplex package outside. Let me know if my summary makes sense. At least this is the gut feeling I got. Stef On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? > > I could continue.. but i and Wilhelm already stated multiple times, > why > we think its a wrong way of doing things. > I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & > smalltalk in general, but > just do it in non-intrusive way. > > I don't want to be peevish here, but things like: > >>> Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk >>> syntax. >>> E.g. >>> (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i) > > indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. > I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math > capabilities, > on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class > hierarchy & putting in danger > all code which using math functions written so far. > > Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. > I fell sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken. > > 2009/8/18 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey(a)whidbey.com> >>> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT >>> To: pharo-project-owner(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> Subject: OverlyComplex >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me >>> and opened >>> ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex. >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072 >>> >>> >>> Note that there are to be three proposals: >>> removeComplex [Issue OverlyComplex] >>> basicComplex >>> extendedComplex >>> >>> SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been >>> added to >>> PharoInbox as per >>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute >>> >>> I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a >>> topic/page. >>> Can some kind soul help me out? >>> >>> Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are >>> welcomed. >>> >>> Thanks much, >>> -KenD >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Aug. 18, 2009

[Pharo-project] [ANN] 10415->10418

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Issue 1067: ByteArray doesNotUnderstand: hex Issue 1045: TTFontReader class-installTTFasTextStylesizes calls FormSetFont>>pixelSize: Issue 1073: addMethod: aMethodReference Issue 936: Traits package not browseable in Monticello one step more towards 1.0 Stef PS: I think that in 1.1 we will have to think how to open a bit more the integration process. The problem is how to make sure that we get a good quality.

Aug. 18, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex

by Igor Stasenko

Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? I could continue.. but i and Wilhelm already stated multiple times, why we think its a wrong way of doing things. I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & smalltalk in general, but just do it in non-intrusive way. I don't want to be peevish here, but things like: >>Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk syntax. >>E.g. >> (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i) indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math capabilities, on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class hierarchy & putting in danger all code which using math functions written so far. Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. I fell sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken. 2009/8/18 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey(a)whidbey.com> >> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT >> To: pharo-project-owner(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> Subject: OverlyComplex >> >> Greetings, >> >> I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me >> and opened >> ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex. >> >> Â http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072 >> >> >> Note that there are to be three proposals: >> Â removeComplex Â [Issue OverlyComplex] >> Â basicComplex >> Â extendedComplex >> >> SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been >> added to >> PharoInbox as per >> Â http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute >> >> I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a >> topic/page. >> Can some kind soul help me out? >> >> Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are >> welcomed. >> >> Thanks much, >> -KenD >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

Aug. 18, 2009