November 2010 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3270 in pharo: fix xor: to work with blocks and booleans

by Peter van Rooijen

Hi, I don't get why it should work with blocks, since evaluation of the exclusive OR operation cannot be short-circuited. Therefore there is no reason to ever use a block as an argument. #and: and #or: take a block as an argument precisely because for 50% of the receivers (i.e., false and true, respectively) it is known in advance that the value of the expression in the argument block is irrelevant, so it would be at least wasteful to evaluate it. But this reasoning does not apply to #xor:. I think it is simply a user mistake when a block is provided as argument, where a boolean is required. It's an understandable mistake (that I've made myself ;) since xor: has such similarities to or: that you automatically want to start a block unless you're really thinking about what you're doing. So, I don't see the bug. Thus, I don't see the fix. I do see obscure code (aBoolean value)and wasted time because of the extra message send. Apologies if this is a late response, I unly just saw the issue mentioned. Cheers, Peter On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:55:41 +0100, <pharo(a)googlecode.com> wrote: > Status: Fixed > Owner: marcus.denker > Labels: Milestone-1.2 > > New issue 3270 by marcus.denker: fix xor: to work with blocks and > booleans > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3270 > > ... so that it works like or: (calling #value on the argument. This > means it will continue to work with booleans, too). > > > > Attachments: > XOr.1.cs 903 bytes >

Nov. 29, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Net::Telnet equivalent

by Elliot Finley

thanks On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Here is the code. > > -Chris >

Nov. 29, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Block semantics ....

by Eliot Miranda

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM, James Ladd <james_ladd(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm wondering about documentation to describe the block semantics of Pharo > Smalltalk, > Specifically around the return context when a block contains a return: [ ^ > foo ] > > Is a block valid only within the method that defined it and passed / called > it? > I think it is, and when called outside of the context there is a > BlockContext no longer exists error. > Note that BlockContext is no longer used. | b | b := [thisContext class]. { b class. b value } answers { BlockClosure. MethodContext }. The block is valid, but the attempt to return from a method can only be made once, whether made form an embedded block or the mehtod itself. So the first attempt to retur wins. However, a block =containing a return can still be evaluated. An error will occur only if the retrn is actually executed. So e.g. fibBlock | b | ^b := [:n| n < 0 ifTrue: [^self error: 'Nooooooo!']. n < 2 ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [(b value: n - 1) + (b value: n - 2)]] (0 to: 10) collect: self fibBlock works fine but self fibBlock value: -1 will produce a cannot return error. > However, I'm looking for documentation or confirmation to ensure my testing > was correct. > > Rgs, James. >

Nov. 29, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3352 in pharo: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #6 on issue 3352 by tony.fleig: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3352 Replacing file MailMessage-seasideMailMessageFromtosubject.st with a version that does not reference my temporary test class. Attachments: MailMessage-seasideMailMessageFromtosubject.st 571 bytes

Nov. 28, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3352 in pharo: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #5 on issue 3352 by tony.fleig: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3352 Right. I wan't sure how a change in Seaside (in WAEmailMessage) that depends on a change in Pharo (in MailMessage) should be handled. I was thinking that the Pharo change should happen first and then the Seaside change?

Nov. 28, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3352 in pharo: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Fixed Comment #4 on issue 3352 by stephane.ducasse: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3352 no stress. By the way pay attention that WA is for seaside.

Nov. 28, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3352 in pharo: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #3 on issue 3352 by tony.fleig: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3352 Oops. This is getting embarrassing. Forgot another file: The multipart/mixed test. Attachments: MailMessageTest-testMultiPartMixed.st 929 bytes

Nov. 28, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3352 in pharo: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #2 on issue 3352 by tony.fleig: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3352 Forgot one file: The MailMessage test. Attachments: MailMessageTest-testMultiPartAlternative.st 953 bytes

Nov. 28, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3352 in pharo: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #1 on issue 3352 by tony.fleig: Proposal (with code) for adding multipart/alternative MIME support to MailMessage and WAEmailMessage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3352 Error in example: TFMailMessage should be MailMessage.

Nov. 28, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3351 in pharo: Comments in MIMEDocument erroneously refer to MIMEObject

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #3 on issue 3351 by tony.fleig: Comments in MIMEDocument erroneously refer to MIMEObject http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3351 MIMEDocument class>>contentType: aMIMEType content: content "create a MIMEObject with the given content-type and content" "MIMEObject contentType: 'text/plain' content: 'This is a test'"

Nov. 28, 2010