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

Re: [Pharo-project] Weird problem...having several "implementors" for the same method and class

by Benjamin

On Nov 26, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Sorry, I know the subject of the mail is confusing, I am confused > myself. Ok, I am doing hacky stuff and playing with CompiledMethod > proxies, but I have a problem searching for implementors. Did you try to make copies of this method ? Ben > > So, I have for example CompiledMethodProxy >> mareaUninstall. > > But when I search for implementors of "mareaUninstall" in the popup > of implementors it shows FOUR times, "CompiledMethodProxy >> > mareaUninstall"... why ??? it should appear only once.. > > I attach an screenshot. Does anyone know what can be happening? > > thanks in advance, > > Mariano > <Screen shot 2010-11-26 at 11.00.23 AM.png>

Nov. 26, 2010

[Pharo-project] Weird problem...having several "implementors" for the same method and class

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Sorry, I know the subject of the mail is confusing, I am confused myself. Ok, I am doing hacky stuff and playing with CompiledMethod proxies, but I have a problem searching for implementors. So, I have for example CompiledMethodProxy >> mareaUninstall. But when I search for implementors of "mareaUninstall" in the popup of implementors it shows FOUR times, "CompiledMethodProxy >> mareaUninstall"... why ??? it should appear only once.. I attach an screenshot. Does anyone know what can be happening? thanks in advance, Mariano

Nov. 26, 2010

[Pharo-project] Little improvement for OB?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi Lukas. If I have the method: isUnitTest ^ false and I search for senders, it would be nice that the search popup doesn't appears and that directly seach the senders.... Hopefully, this is a simple check for the size of a collection in somewhere. And of course, it will affect not only senders by implementors, etc.. :) Cheers Mariano

Nov. 26, 2010

[Pharo-project] TestRunner and OB, esier to run tests when subclassing?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi. Forget for a moment why I have subclasses in my tests. But I have them. Some people do not agree with this, but this is not what I want to discuss. Suppose I have an abstract test sub several subclasses. In my case, all the tests (most of them) are in the superclass. But all tests use a method that I override in each concrete subclass. So...I have 2 problems: 1) I cannot run a single test (cmd + t) from OB, from one of the abstract class, but a subclass as receiver. (remember I override). This is the most complicated for me. I don't remember if it was squeak or VAST but I was able to select the scope of the visibility of methods while browsing methods. So for example, with OB, I would love to scope the methods if the method pane to: self (as it is now), self + all super classes , self + all super classes but not Object. This way, I can just change the scope, see the tests and be able to run them directly from the subclass. In addition, I think this is very useful. 2) When I open a test runner, I don't want that my abstract class appears there, since you cannot run the tests. Is there a way to prevent this? thanks in advance, mariano

Nov. 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3326 in pharo: SourceReference>>parseTimestampFrom: still chokes

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Fixed Comment #1 on issue 3326 by johanbri...(a)me.com: SourceReference>>parseTimestampFrom: still chokes http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3326 (No comment was entered for this change.)

Nov. 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3327 in pharo: Senders broken

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #2 on issue 3327 by johanbri...(a)me.com: Senders broken http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3327 Fix of issue #3326 fixes this

Nov. 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3327 in pharo: Senders broken

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #1 on issue 3327 by johanbri...(a)me.com: Senders broken http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3327 Fix of issue #3326 fixes this

Nov. 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] How to copy a CompiledMethod?

by Gabriel HernÃ¡n Barbuto

No. I did something even more simpler. I looked at CompiledMethod's veryDeepCopy and that explains the behavior. The comment states: "Return self. I am always shared. Do not record me. Only use this for blocks. Normally methodDictionaries should not be copied this way." So, I wonder in which way should method dictionaries be copied. Bests Gabriel On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <Stephane.Ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > May be you should try to define a postCopy method on compiledMethod. > Now I do not know if the system relies on assumption that copy = shallowcopy for compiledMethods. > > Did you check the senders of verydeepcopy? > > Stef > On Nov 25, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Gabriel HernÃ¡n Barbuto wrote: > >> Hi Igor >> >> Thanks for your response. I am quite a new to all this low level >> stuff. So please bear with me if I am missing something obvious. >> >> I need to make a deep copy of a method dictionary. I was using copy >> but CompiledMethod does not define copy, and so it inherits it from >> Object. Object's copy does a shallowCopy followed by a postCopy. None >> of these methods is defined by CompiledMethod. So if I use that I will >> only get a shallow copy of the CompiledMethod instead of a deep copy. >> >> For example, if I try the following code snippet: >> >> | source copy | >> source := Object methodDict at: #at:. >> copy := source copy. >> Transcript show: 'Equals: '; show: source = copy; cr. >> Transcript show: 'Same: '; show: source == copy; cr. >> Transcript show: 'Literal at: '; show: source numLiterals - 1; show: ' '. >> Transcript show: (source literalAt: source numLiterals - 1); cr. >> Transcript show: 'Same AdditionalMethodState: '; >> Â Â Â show: (source literalAt: source numLiterals - 1) == (copy literalAt: >> copy numLiterals -1); cr. >> >> I get the following results on Transcript: >> >> Equals: true >> Same: false >> Literal at: 8 an AdditionalMethodState >> Same AdditionalMethodState: true >> >> Here the literal in position 8, an AdditionalMethodState is not being >> duplicated. Of course, I selected number 8 because that is the one I >> am interested in, but any literal besides symbols will do. >> >> If I replace copy with veryDeepCopy in the snippet above I get the >> following results: >> >> Equals: true >> Same: true >> Literal at: 8 an AdditionalMethodState >> Same AdditionalMethodState: true >> >> which are odd since I would not expect them to be the same. >> >> With respect to Pragmas. Please, inspect Object>>#at: and you will see >> that there is no pragma in the literals. The pragma is referenced by >> the AdditionalMethodState literal. >> >> So I am still looking for the correct, if there is one, way to >> completely duplicate a CompiledMethod. Maybe I should take a look at >> veryDeepCopy and see why it gives the results it gives and not what I >> expect. >> >> Any ideas are welcome. >> >> Best regards >> Gabriel >> >> The problem was that I was still getting references from outside and >> I was wondering why. >> >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 25 November 2010 20:44, Gabriel HernÃ¡n Barbuto <gbarbuto(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I am trying to make a complete duplicate of a CompiledMethod. I >>>> started with CompiledMethod>>#copyWithTrailerBytes: but I think that >>>> this way still leaves some things to copy. It duplicates all the >>>> literals, but I think that it doesn't duplicate a Pragma if for >>>> example, the method has one. >>>> >>> AFAIR, pragmas are stored as one of literals. >>> So, it actually should also make a copy of pragmas. >>> >>>> Is there a proper way to completely make deep copy of a >>>> CompiledMethod? I mean, without writing my own. If there is a way to >>>> do it, I don't want to duplicate it. >>>> >>> if you tell more, why #copy is not enough for you. >>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> Gabriel >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>> >>> >> > > >

Nov. 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] How to copy a CompiledMethod?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

May be you should try to define a postCopy method on compiledMethod. Now I do not know if the system relies on assumption that copy = shallowcopy for compiledMethods. Did you check the senders of verydeepcopy? Stef On Nov 25, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Gabriel HernÃ¡n Barbuto wrote: > Hi Igor > > Thanks for your response. I am quite a new to all this low level > stuff. So please bear with me if I am missing something obvious. > > I need to make a deep copy of a method dictionary. I was using copy > but CompiledMethod does not define copy, and so it inherits it from > Object. Object's copy does a shallowCopy followed by a postCopy. None > of these methods is defined by CompiledMethod. So if I use that I will > only get a shallow copy of the CompiledMethod instead of a deep copy. > > For example, if I try the following code snippet: > > | source copy | > source := Object methodDict at: #at:. > copy := source copy. > Transcript show: 'Equals: '; show: source = copy; cr. > Transcript show: 'Same: '; show: source == copy; cr. > Transcript show: 'Literal at: '; show: source numLiterals - 1; show: ' '. > Transcript show: (source literalAt: source numLiterals - 1); cr. > Transcript show: 'Same AdditionalMethodState: '; > show: (source literalAt: source numLiterals - 1) == (copy literalAt: > copy numLiterals -1); cr. > > I get the following results on Transcript: > > Equals: true > Same: false > Literal at: 8 an AdditionalMethodState > Same AdditionalMethodState: true > > Here the literal in position 8, an AdditionalMethodState is not being > duplicated. Of course, I selected number 8 because that is the one I > am interested in, but any literal besides symbols will do. > > If I replace copy with veryDeepCopy in the snippet above I get the > following results: > > Equals: true > Same: true > Literal at: 8 an AdditionalMethodState > Same AdditionalMethodState: true > > which are odd since I would not expect them to be the same. > > With respect to Pragmas. Please, inspect Object>>#at: and you will see > that there is no pragma in the literals. The pragma is referenced by > the AdditionalMethodState literal. > > So I am still looking for the correct, if there is one, way to > completely duplicate a CompiledMethod. Maybe I should take a look at > veryDeepCopy and see why it gives the results it gives and not what I > expect. > > Any ideas are welcome. > > Best regards > Gabriel > > The problem was that I was still getting references from outside and > I was wondering why. > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 25 November 2010 20:44, Gabriel HernÃ¡n Barbuto <gbarbuto(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> I am trying to make a complete duplicate of a CompiledMethod. I >>> started with CompiledMethod>>#copyWithTrailerBytes: but I think that >>> this way still leaves some things to copy. It duplicates all the >>> literals, but I think that it doesn't duplicate a Pragma if for >>> example, the method has one. >>> >> AFAIR, pragmas are stored as one of literals. >> So, it actually should also make a copy of pragmas. >> >>> Is there a proper way to completely make deep copy of a >>> CompiledMethod? I mean, without writing my own. If there is a way to >>> do it, I don't want to duplicate it. >>> >> if you tell more, why #copy is not enough for you. >> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> Gabriel >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> >

Nov. 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] RBScanner>>#initializeClassificationTable

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Nov 25, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: > The setting is Compiler > Allow underscore as assignment. Ok I was confused. This is more a toggle and we should change the description of the setting to convey that. Stef >>>>> That's fair, because you can't use underscores in selectors in Pharo. >>>> >>>> Strange because I was sure that we integrate it that behavior to help people calling C function. >>> >>> The above statement is wrong. Of course underscores can be used in >>> selectors and variables for a long time already. >> >> Thanks lukas. I was surprised and I was starting to look in the bugentry. So you saved me some time. >> Apparently there is no setting to control it. Do you know how to configure it so that I enter a bug entry to make sure that we get a setting? >> >> >>> >>> Lukas >>> >>> -- >>> Lukas Renggli >>> www.lukas-renggli.ch >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch >

Nov. 26, 2010