February 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.2] #12333

by Igor Stasenko

On 10 February 2011 15:26, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > - Issue 3682: Â multiple undo/redo is broken in 1.2 because of Ocompletion. Part two. Thanks Alain Plantec. > - Issue 3660: Â Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support. Thanks lukas, julian and dale. > Thanks! > Stef > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3660 in pharo: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #7 on issue 3660 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 (No comment was entered for this change.)

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3660 in pharo: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #6 on issue 3660 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3660 in 1.2 12333

Feb. 10, 2011

[Pharo-project] [update 1.2] #12333

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

- Issue 3682: multiple undo/redo is broken in 1.2 because of Ocompletion. Part two. Thanks Alain Plantec. - Issue 3660: Revert incorrect Monticello branch naming support. Thanks lukas, julian and dale. Stef

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3682 in pharo: multiple undo/redo is broken in 1.2 because of Ocompletion.

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #9 on issue 3682 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: multiple undo/redo is broken in 1.2 because of Ocompletion. http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3682 part two in 13045 and in 12333

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3583 in pharo: Shout should only be active in code panes

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #31 on issue 3583 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Shout should only be active in code panes http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3583 I tried to load the cses but they broke on me... unstyled or beStyled not found.

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3675 in pharo: ProcessBrowser>>cleanup

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #2 on issue 3675 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: ProcessBrowser>>cleanup http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3675 in 13046

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3583 in pharo: Shout should only be active in code panes

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #30 on issue 3583 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Shout should only be active in code panes http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3583 ben your slice is empty. Could you republish it. Or should I take the cs?

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] A tinyBenchmark

by Levente Uzonyi

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Torsten Bergmann wrote: > >> see http://fbanados.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/a-tinybenchmark >> >> Maybe Eliot is able to say something here on the main >> differences between Cog <-> VW VM. > > You made several mistakes: I mean Felipe, not you Torsten. Levente > - You didn't post the source code for #tinyBenchmarks. Do all those > Smalltalks implement it? Are the implementations equal? > - You didn't specify the version numbers for the VMs used. Or if you built > them yourself, then the sourcecode + compiler version + configuration > parameters. Without these your measurements can't be reproduced. > - There are two different Cog VMs. You didn't specify which one did you use > with Pharo. > - You used a CogVM (JIT) with Pharo but SqueakVM (interpreter) with Squeak > 4.2. What's even worse is that you based your conclusion on this mistake. > - Does #tinyBenchmarks alone give fair performance comparison? Hardly. > > > Levente > >> >> Thx >> T. >> -- >> NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! >> Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone >> >> > >

Feb. 10, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3401 in pharo: Comparison of Urls is not possible yet

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #3 on issue 3401 by cesar.ra...(a)gmail.com: Comparison of Urls is not possible yet http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3401 I want to add to Sven comments, which not only I second in full, but also because converting URI/URLs to strings to do comparisons will not cut in. Staying just in the context of HTTP as Sven points out, what it is the expected semantics in comparing two URLs? Should an alias of a URL be considered 'equal' to the aliased URL as tinyurl service produces? What about URLs with parameters whose order often doesn't matter, but from a string perspective they would be 'different'?

Feb. 10, 2011