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

Re: [Pharo-project] Explicit return in []

by Alexandre Bergel

> So this tells us what we all expected: If there is non-local return, > people use other patterns. Exactly. > I doubt though that this generally leads to > smaller methods or easier to understand code. Maybe I talked here for my personal experience. I asked some schemers around me, and they think there is no relation between the existence of return and the function length. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14141

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> Proably, clearly some more work is required before it is ready >> (maybe a StackLayout with the adornment in a spaceFill Panel with proportional layout would work) >> > > Now doing the undo with yet another update would be a lot of work... > > Is is ok to just remove update 14141-1413 from the update stream? Yes

Sept. 15, 2011

[Pharo-project] Fuel or image segments (project files)

by Dimitry Golubovsky

Hi, Martin Dias wrote: > About Fuel ... Hopefully we might be capable of doing that in some months... > at the moment you can find some limitations, especially if you were using > DiskProxy (do you?). I am not sure if I use DiskProxy. Since I was constrained to use an oldish 3.9 image, I had to find what worked through some experiments. What I use now (maybe that looks ugly these days, but works the way I need): To save the current status of the application: "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" Project current storeOnServerInnards. "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" This bypasses the dialog that asks for saved project file name and location, and just saves a new version of project file in the directory of the image file, and in the Squeaklets directory underneath. Versioning is important for me because if something goes wrong during the saving of a project I can simply load a previous version manually. To load the last saved version of the project with given name: "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" loadProject: aString "load a project from a file whose name is like XXX.nnn.pr from the default directory where XXX are letters, and nnn are numbers. A project with the highest version will be loaded" | files dir | dir := FileDirectory default. files := (dir fileNames select: [ :fn | | prts | prts := fn findBetweenSubStrs: '.'. ((prts size = 3) and: [(prts at: 1) = aString & (prts at: 3) = 'pr'] ). ]) asOrderedCollection sort: [ :e1 :e2 | | en1 en2 | en1 := (e1 findBetweenSubStrs: '.') at: 2. en2 := (e2 findBetweenSubStrs: '.') at: 2. (en1 asInteger) > (en2 asInteger). ]. ^files ifNotEmpty: [ ProjectLoading openFromDirectory: dir andFileName: (files at: 1). Smalltalk garbageCollect. ] ifEmpty: [ nil ]. "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" so that's ProjectLoading openFromDirectory:andFileName: I am not saving any code, only data. But if Fuel provided a way to overlay application-specific code over the generic image, this way of binary deployment would be very convenient. Especially given the tablet's CPU is very slow, loading large mcz's from Monticello repos and compiling them may take terrible time. Thanks. PS Saving methods did not work in the old Squeak image anyway... Even on a PC. -- Dimitry Golubovsky Anywhere on the Web

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14141

by Marcus Denker

On Sep 15, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: > Proably, clearly some more work is required before it is ready > (maybe a StackLayout with the adornment in a spaceFill Panel with proportional layout would work) > Now doing the undo with yet another update would be a lot of work... Is is ok to just remove update 14141-1413 from the update stream? -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14141

by Alain Plantec

On 15/09/2011 13:44, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On Sep 15, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: > >> Somewhat... >> The change in PluggableTextMorph>>initialize to a proportional layout >> affects the minExtent calculation, hence splitters for text will not allow shrinkage any more... yes, at least the finder, the settingbrowser and the timeprofiler are curiously dressed now :) Alain >> > > Maybe we should just undo all the changes... > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de > > >

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Explicit return in []

by Lukas Renggli

On 15 September 2011 14:20, Lukas Renggli <renggli(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> How would you write the following method in Scheme (assuming that >>> there is something like a #at:ifAbsent: in Scheme)? >>> >>> Â Â Object>>foo >>> Â Â Â bar := zork at: 1 ifAbsent: [ ^ 2 ]. >>> Â Â Â self andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent: bar. >> >> Either use a continution (call/cc), or check whether 1 is in zork, or check if looking for 1 return nil. But basically, it is likely that you will have one function for the the lookup, and another that does the andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent:. > > You are changing the example, you were supposed to use #at:ifAbsent: :-) > > So this tells us what we all expected: If there is non-local return, > people use other patterns. I doubt though that this generally leads to > smaller methods or easier to understand code. s/non-local/no non-local/ Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Explicit return in []

by Lukas Renggli

>> How would you write the following method in Scheme (assuming that >> there is something like a #at:ifAbsent: in Scheme)? >> >> Â Â Object>>foo >> Â Â Â bar := zork at: 1 ifAbsent: [ ^ 2 ]. >> Â Â Â self andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent: bar. > > Either use a continution (call/cc), or check whether 1 is in zork, or check if looking for 1 return nil. But basically, it is likely that you will have one function for the the lookup, and another that does the andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent:. You are changing the example, you were supposed to use #at:ifAbsent: :-) So this tells us what we all expected: If there is non-local return, people use other patterns. I doubt though that this generally leads to smaller methods or easier to understand code. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14141

by Gary Chambers

Proably, clearly some more work is required before it is ready (maybe a StackLayout with the adornment in a spaceFill Panel with proportional layout would work) Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> To: <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14141 On Sep 15, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: > Somewhat... > The change in PluggableTextMorph>>initialize to a proportional layout > affects the minExtent calculation, hence splitters for text will not allow > shrinkage any more... > Maybe we should just undo all the changes... -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Explicit return in []

by Alexandre Bergel

> How would you write the following method in Scheme (assuming that > there is something like a #at:ifAbsent: in Scheme)? > > Object>>foo > bar := zork at: 1 ifAbsent: [ ^ 2 ]. > self andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent: bar. Either use a continution (call/cc), or check whether 1 is in zork, or check if looking for 1 return nil. But basically, it is likely that you will have one function for the the lookup, and another that does the andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent:. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Sept. 15, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Explicit return in []

by Lukas Renggli

On 15 September 2011 13:52, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > No, decrease. Scheme forces you to have short functions, which usually begin with a condition or a case statement. It seems to me you assume that ^ is only used for local returns? How would you write the following method in Scheme (assuming that there is something like a #at:ifAbsent: in Scheme)? Object>>foo bar := zork at: 1 ifAbsent: [ ^ 2 ]. self andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent: bar. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch

Sept. 15, 2011