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

Re: [Pharo-project] ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo

by Alexandre Bergel

I do not know this socket library, but telling us about your plan to work on is important to avoid effort redundancy which often leads to frustration. Alexandre On 19 Mar 2011, at 07:09, Vijay Mathew wrote: > Hi all, > > I have started working on ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo. > (ZeroMQ website: http://www.zeromq.org/) > > Thanks, > > -- Vijay > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I have another problem is: imagine we do not match category to package so this means that users will have to add explicitly their categories to the package So I load Foo I get the contents of Foo and Foo-B categories into RPackage Foo. I save Foo and it save the classes in Foo and Foo-B (categories are not considered just rpackage contents) Now I add a category Foo-C (because the browser let me do it) -> may be system should ask me: do you want to add to the Foo RPackage? -> may be I should do it explicitly Better is that we have a browser only showing RPackages Then what happen if I add a new class Zork in Foo-C The class category will be Foo-C and again does the system has to check in which package it should put the class? How do I map Zork class? -> explicitly? -> What happens if I do it via a browser only showing classes and categories? So the mapping Category to package is not that bad else we will have to check *****ALL***** the time if a class should be put in a package or not and compare category with package names. And we will have all the crap of matching with sub subc.... most specific categories.... So I would like to community to react to this mail because this is important and people will get frustrated after. I think that a one to one mapping to category is a good idea. + having a browser just showing packages would be good. Then we can after have a browser that show categories as tags and sort the classes accordingly. So people please thing a bit because I want to make progress and losing my time is boring. Stef

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Refactoring Browser Enhancements

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

fixed now and published in DirtyExperiments. Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:31 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi benjamin > > I published a new package (to revert the dependencies) in DirtyExperiments > and a fixed the points raised by lukas. I added also some comments. > I should fix > > testEnvironmentWrapper > | printString wrapper | > printString := BrowserEnvironment new referencesTo: #printString. > wrapper := BrowserEnvironmentWrapper onEnvironment: printString. > self assert: wrapper numberSelectors = printString numberSelectors. > self assert: wrapper numberClasses = printString numberClasses. > self assert: wrapper environment == printString > > Stef > > > On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin wrote: > >> Hi lukas >> >> with Stef we refactored the Browser environment: >> - now it can be parametrized by a system dictionary >> - we also move selectionIn* to the AST-Core so that Environment can be loaded independently. >> >> Could you integrate the packages in rb? >> There are >> AST-Core >> Refactoring-Critics >> Refactoring-Environment >> Refactoring-Test-Envrionment >> >> In DirtyExperiments on SqueakSource >> >> >> Ben >> >> PS: All the test are green ;) >> >> >> >> >> > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Thanks Keep us aware of your progress. May be you want to sync with the Ocean people since they are redesigning the network library. Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Vijay Mathew wrote: > Hi all, > > I have started working on ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo. > (ZeroMQ website: http://www.zeromq.org/) > > Thanks, > > -- Vijay >

March 19, 2011

[Pharo-project] ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo

by Vijay Mathew

Hi all, I have started working on ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo. (ZeroMQ website: http://www.zeromq.org/) Thanks, -- Vijay

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:56 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> >> - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC. >> and to have tags to only represent categories. >> >> Now my time is short so I will >> - probably not implement tags > > Even then, I would vote for mapping one PackageInfo --> one Rpackage. But this is far from simple because you have then to deal with categories matching. I'm trying to see if I can do the following: At load time when I load Foo (ie the package Foo) I map Foo-zork and Foo-cat to Foo (if this is like that in the MC file) Now what is happening if the user create a new category Foo-tt Foo-tt will not be mapped to Foo. So what will happen? So I will try to understand how this is working right now and sync with cyrille. > Categories are not packages, if > we make every category a package we will end up in a big mess (as groups of these would have lots and lots > of dependencies). Already the PackageInfo Packages for Network and Collection (the split into just the class > categories - as- packages) was a mistake, purely driven by speed of MC. I do not think so. Collections should be repackaged. We should repackage the classes. > - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange >> code. >> - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place >> like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo >> - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to >> associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames >> and change the packages accordingly). >> - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching. >> >> So if you have suggestion please talk now. >> >> >> Stef > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Yes I would love that. I'm concerned about the migration from current situation to the new ones. Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2011, at 8:12 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > >>> >>> Is this a conscious decision to have an unique package per each >>> category name, or just a technical limitation? >> >> RPAckage has nothing to do with category matching: a package is a list of classes and methods. >> >> Now the problem is simply the following: >> >> you have a MC package FOO >> it contains FOO-Cat1 >> >> you load it: ok the loader could create >> RPAckage Foo >> and put FOO classes and Foo-Cat Classes in it >> >> Now you create a new category >> FOO-z what should I do >> add it to FOO >> create a package Foo-z >> >> We would like to get rid of the naming convention and matching on categories now we could have tags >> but tags should orthogonal to packages. >> > > > Imagine we would at the same time abandon both PackageInfo *and* System Categories. > > Then you would just do: > > > you have a MC package FOO > it contains FOO-Cat1 > > --> One RPackage Foo > > you have a MC package FOO > it contains FOO-Cat1 > FOO-Dog2 > > --> One RPackage Foo. We loose the sub structure. > > For the sub-structure, the way categories are now used in PackageInfo packages is > that they do not denote sub-packages, but just some convinient sorting without semantic > (to the language) meaning, just as method categories. > > So the perfect thing would be to have some form of ordering inside of RPackage (e.g. tagging). > > The case "Now you create a new Category" would not exist, as there are no categories anymore. > Categories should die. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Marcus Denker

On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:56 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > > - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC. > and to have tags to only represent categories. > > Now my time is short so I will > - probably not implement tags Even then, I would vote for mapping one PackageInfo --> one Rpackage. Categories are not packages, if we make every category a package we will end up in a big mess (as groups of these would have lots and lots of dependencies). Already the PackageInfo Packages for Network and Collection (the split into just the class categories - as- packages) was a mistake, purely driven by speed of MC. > - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange > code. > - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place > like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo > - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to > associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames > and change the packages accordingly). > - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching. > > So if you have suggestion please talk now. > > > Stef -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Marcus Denker

On Mar 19, 2011, at 8:12 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> >> Is this a conscious decision to have an unique package per each >> category name, or just a technical limitation? > > RPAckage has nothing to do with category matching: a package is a list of classes and methods. > > Now the problem is simply the following: > > you have a MC package FOO > it contains FOO-Cat1 > > you load it: ok the loader could create > RPAckage Foo > and put FOO classes and Foo-Cat Classes in it > > Now you create a new category > FOO-z what should I do > add it to FOO > create a package Foo-z > > We would like to get rid of the naming convention and matching on categories now we could have tags > but tags should orthogonal to packages. > Imagine we would at the same time abandon both PackageInfo *and* System Categories. Then you would just do: you have a MC package FOO it contains FOO-Cat1 --> One RPackage Foo you have a MC package FOO it contains FOO-Cat1 FOO-Dog2 --> One RPackage Foo. We loose the sub structure. For the sub-structure, the way categories are now used in PackageInfo packages is that they do not denote sub-packages, but just some convinient sorting without semantic (to the language) meaning, just as method categories. So the perfect thing would be to have some form of ordering inside of RPackage (e.g. tagging). The case "Now you create a new Category" would not exist, as there are no categories anymore. Categories should die. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Method expressed as symbol, used as argument

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:40 AM, DougEdmunds <dougedmunds(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It was pointed out that given an instance method > MyClass >> doSomething > that > MyClass do: [:each | each doSomething]. > can be expressed as > MyClass do: #doSomething. > The reasons is this: check the #do: implementation and you will see all it does is to send #value:. But who says that only BlockClosure cna understand #value: ? Indeed, Symbol DOES UNDERSTAND value: ;) and it is: Symbol >> value: anObject ^anObject perform: self. So.....a selector is a Symbol.... Check this thread: http://forum.world.st/OffTopoc-Symbol-understands-value-nice-hehehehehhe-td… Now...whether it is cool to use it or not, it is another question. FOr iterating collections I would always use the normal approach. cheers Mariano > Can someone suggest something to read that explains the usage of # > here (#doSomething), the relation of methods to symbols, etc. > > Trying to wrap my head around it. Thanks. > > -dae > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Method-expressed-as-symbol-used-as-argument-tp3388864… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

March 19, 2011