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

Re: [Pharo-project] Henrik should we include Settings-Sound ?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

ok go for it and we will see :) On Apr 24, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > yes, but this package Setttings is only the integration with the Settings browser...that's why I think we should include it. > > cheers > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > I do not remember the situation with the sound. > I think that we should clean the soundService and the rest. > But right now I'm trying to move on the package but this is a huge pain. > > Stef > > > There is the repository http://www.squeaksource.com/PharoSound > > In that repo you will see a package "Settings-Sound" which is not included in ConfigurationOfPharoSound nor in any other place. Hence, it is not included in PharoDev. > > I am just wondering if we need to include such package or not. > > Henrik is the commiter of such packages so I asked. > > > > Cheers > > > > Mariano > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > btw can you provide more context? > > You mean that it is not manage as a configuration but is referenced in pharo-dev conifguration ? > > > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > no > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:36 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > it is not? > > > > > > Stef > > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > > > I saw that package in PharoSound and I wonder if it should be added to the Metacello conf > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mariano > > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mariano > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Error with latest ProfStef in Pharo 1.3

by laurent laffont

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote: > ah ah! This is what we have changed during the pharo cast. > Laurent, do you want that we have a look at it together? > haha I won't be able to look at it until Tuesday. Laurent. > > Cheers, > Alexandre > > > On 24 Apr 2011, at 11:30, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > "Error 'Please use buildTutorialTopicFor: instead'" > > > > when I try to open it from the menu. > > > > ProfStefHelpTutorialBuilder >> buildHelpTopicFrom: aHelpTopicDescription > > "Start building from the given help topic description" > > > > ^(self new) > > rootToBuildFrom: aHelpTopicDescription; > > build; > > topicToBuild > > > > the rpoblem is that #new > > > > I am using last versions of Pharo1.3 > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > >

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* > > Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and > enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to > move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's > private method is just another's public??? A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' > > Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't > trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of > following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak > modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, > please); I'll be the first in line. I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

>> Implementation notes >> iv and their purposes > > May I ask, what if we stopped ever mentioning instance vars in the > class comment? Perhaps it's a problem of having only one place to > document both external and internal details of the class, but it > really irks me when the comment template for a newly created class > suggests that I divulge the implementation details in what appears to > be a document of the interface. Moreover, the comment must change > when the implementation changes, even if the interface remains the > same. Perhaps that's why so many class comments seem out of sync with > the current state of their classes. Indeed. Synchronizing the documentation and the code is a problem. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

> - without 'as yet unclassified' method category > - each public method belongs to a method category named public* > > For me no. that's just a convention you may use. I don't put all my public methods in public* But if you have a tool that does it automatically for you, will you use it? > - each private method belongs to a method category named private* > > the same here..sometimes in put them in private* but soemtimes no. Ok, but I am not really talking how you should write you code, but how you would like to read code that you haven't written. Will it help to have public* and private* categories? > - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables > > It depends if it is worth it or not. Putting a comment that explains exactly the same than the code is not worth it if the method is "self explanatory". Anyway, millions of times you do need to put comments and they help. I appreciate Lukas' code. It is full of comments. > - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' > > this sounds too java for me. Indeed. > - without commented code contained in its methods. > > Is there anything else? > > > For me, when dealing with frameworks where there are "base" clases that one can subclass and make its own concrete subclass, it is NEVER documented which methods should I implement. What I mean is that I really like (and I do it) to create a superclass with all the necessary methods as ^ self subclassResponsability (yes, kind of Java interface). Yes, the class comment can contains what are the necessary methods to overload. Cheers, Alexandre > > cheers > > mariano > > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [Metacello] Which packages should we include of metacello for Pharo 1.3?

by Dale Henrichs

Mariano, Including the Tests and Tutorial groups sounds good (excluding the OB-Metallo menu items) ... I would hold off on including the MetacelloBrowser for a bit. The interface is clunky at the moment and needs to be improved before we let it loose:) Hopefully we'll get some more good feedback from some folks so that we can focus on polishing up a subset of commands that can be packaged up for "immediate" release ... Dale On Apr 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: Hi Dale and the rest. In Pharo 1.2 we used to include these packages/groups from Metacello: #('Metacello-Core' 'Tutorial' 'UI' 'Metacello-ProfStef' 'Metacello-Help'); and #('Tests') Is this still valid? because I decided them a couple of months ago...so maybe they are not valid anymore. For example, do we want the MetacelloBrowser or things like that ? and the MetacelloToolbox ? Thanks -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com<http://marianopeck.wordpress.com/>

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

> for the class comment I would have > > intention > I'm doing that > collaborations > with the help of this class and that class > main api > my main public API is ... > > my subclasses may want to override such specific hooks ... > > Implementation notes > iv and their purposes Yes! The collaborations and main api may be automatically inferred (from unit tests?) The public interface can also be inferred. I will work on this. Alexandre > > >> Hi! >> >> I am dreaming about a tool to help me document source code. The question I have is what is a well documented class? >> What do you think about the following: >> >> A well documented class is a class: >> - that contains a class comment >> - its class comments contains either an example, or an associated unit test >> - without 'as yet unclassified' method category >> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >> - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables >> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >> - without commented code contained in its methods. >> >> Is there anything else? >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Help updating confs and building Pharo 1.3

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote: > Hi Mariano, > > > What I need is that people: > > > > - update all the confs that are not yet updated to work on Pharo 1.3 > > - test them > > - report if there are problems. > > I am not sure how I can help you. I think that this is the responsibility > of the author to take care of this. > Yes, but some packages/projects do NOT have author...so someone needs to do it anyway ;) And another good thing is to start testing your OWN projects on top of Pharo 1.3 now. Not necessary what is included in the dev. So that we can spot problems right now. What are the conf where I am personally involved? Out of my memory there is > MemoryMonitor. Is there more? > > Maybe with Metacello and ProfStef ? For example, for Metacello, if we need to include the MetacelloBrowser, but do I need to include in the baseline of ConfigurationOfPharo ? > It would be cool to have a page that says what are the responsibilities of > each of us. > > yes, the problem is not that one, the problem are the packages/projects that nobody takes care. Cheers Mariano > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Help updating confs and building Pharo 1.3

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

+1 > We cannot wait the last minute for PharoDev, it has to be build and test now. Hudson cannot build right now because there is another problem, but you can test your packages/projects anyway.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [Metacello] Which packages should we include of metacello for Pharo 1.3?

by Alexandre Bergel

the browser should be considered. It will continue to evolve however. Alexandre On 24 Apr 2011, at 10:33, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi Dale and the rest. In Pharo 1.2 we used to include these packages/groups from Metacello: #('Metacello-Core' 'Tutorial' 'UI' 'Metacello-ProfStef' 'Metacello-Help'); and #('Tests') > > Is this still valid? because I decided them a couple of months ago...so maybe they are not valid anymore. > For example, do we want the MetacelloBrowser or things like that ? > and the MetacelloToolbox ? > > Thanks > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011