December 2012 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] another kid born: NBExternalEnumerationType

by Igor Stasenko

>> I do not completely agree with you on this one (but you already now it). The >> thing is that if we use integers then the user will have to constantly ask >> which enum value should I pass here... > > The idea is to not expose enum values to user at all. > Sometimes it easily doable, sometimes not.. it depends , of course.. > But ideally, there should be only messages. > Just to elaborate a bit, here the real example AthensCairoPaintMode cairo has a function void cairo_set_operator (AthensCairoCanvas canvas, cairo_operator_t aCairoOperatorT) ) to set a composition operator (porter-duff one). The cairo_operator_t is indeed enum there. So, if i would use enums, users would need to tell: canvas setPaintMode: enumValue instead, the syntax to say that is following: canvas paintMode enumValueName in that way i deal with two problems: - users don't have to use shared pools in their code, more than that, it is impossible to pass some invalid value to the function. - since Athens can use multiple backends, using backend-specific enumeration values would immediately render application tightly coupled with specific backend. To avoid that, i would be needing to define own backend-neutral enumeration and then map it to backend-specific one.. This is stinks a lot to my taste.. Instead, a backend-specific AthensPaintMode subclass simply implements own method per each enumValueName for example: overlay ^ self setOperator: CAIRO_OPERATOR_OVERLAY -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 13, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] another kid born: NBExternalEnumerationType

by Igor Stasenko

On 13 December 2012 08:16, Ciprian Teodorov <ciprian.teodorov(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 13 December 2012 03:08, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 11 December 2012 20:33, Ciprian Teodorov <ciprian.teodorov(a)gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> >> >> today I have commited to the NativeBoost repository a new core class, >> >> the >> >> NBExternalEnumerationType, >> >> which reifies the enum declarations in C and offers a nice interface >> >> (especially in terms of debug/inspect). >> >> >> >> To use it just subclass the NBExternalEnumeration and add an #enumDecl >> >> method to the class side such as: >> >> >> >> NBExternalEnumeration subclass: #NBTestEnumeration >> >> instanceVariableNames: '' >> >> classVariableNames: '' >> >> poolDictionaries: '' >> >> category: 'NativeBoost-Tests' >> >> >> >> NBTestEnumeration class>>enumDecl >> >> ^ {(#AAA -> 1). >> >> (#BBB -> 2). >> >> (#CCC -> 3). >> >> (#DDD -> 2400)} asDictionary >> >> >> > just one comment: imo, it would be better to not force users to >> > remember that they should use >> > complicated syntax in this method. >> > >> > i propose following syntax: >> > >> > NBTestEnumeration class>>enumDecl >> > ^ #( >> > #AAA 1 >> > #BBB -> 2 >> > #CCC -> 3 >> > #DDD -> 2400 >> > ) >> > >> oops, of course it should be just pairs, e.g.: >> #( A 1 B 2 C 3) >> Yep this is a good idea for most cases so I'll integrate it. But there are >> those cases where your enum has many items (more than the number of literals >> we can have in a method), and I think in those cases having the user give us >> a prebuilt dictionary is better. and where you see many literals? #( ..... no matter how many stuff here ... ) is 1 (single) literal! .. (i wonder, why people keep confusing literals in method body versus stuff in a single literal array :) And you don't have to trust my word, you can check it by yourself, just evaluate: | x | x := #(A B C). ^ thisContext method literals size versus: | x | x := #(A B C D E F G H I J K L M N). ^ thisContext method literals size >> >> > then you can have >> > >> > NBTestEnumeration class>>initializeEnum >> > >> > dict := Dictionary newFromPairs: self enumDecl >> > ..... >> > >> > then #initialize should just do 'self initializeEnum' >> > >> > >> > >> >> DO NOT FORGET to call the #initialize method on your class. The rest is >> >> automatically done ;) >> >> >> >> You can use your new enum in two ways: >> >> >> >> add it to a client class poolDictionaries list (see >> >> #NBExternalEnumTests >> >> for an example), and then just write CCC in your code -- CCC here is an >> >> item >> >> of your enum >> >> or you can send the name of an item to your class --- NBTestEnumeration >> >> DDD >> >> >> >> The NBExternalEnumeration implements (instance and class) some more >> >> API >> >> methods like: >> >> >> >> #itemAt: retrieves the item having a specific value --- >> >> NBTestEnumeration >> >> itemAt: 2 >> >> #includes: checks the existence of a specific item in the enum --- >> >> NBTestEnumeration includes: #AAA >> >> >> >> Having this already gives us a nice interface to working with enums. >> >> Now I >> >> plan to improve a little bit on performance and usage scenarios: >> >> >> >> the possibility to accept smalltalk integers as valid input/output for >> >> functions(or callbacks) that use enums as arguments/return. >> >> support the different representation types for the enum values >> >> (int/uint) >> >> >> > >> > to my thinking, it not worth implementing separate type converter for >> > enums.. >> > just put a note that if people would like to deal nicely with enums >> > returned by function(s), >> > they should use a converter , something like that: >> > >> > enumValue := MyEnumeration fromInteger: (self >> > callSomeFunctionReturningInt) > > This is a good idea too. >> >> > >> > then this method can implement converting from int->enum object, >> > as well as do a range checking etc. >> > in same way, if people want to use 'enumValue' for passing it as >> > parameter to external function, >> > they should not pass it directly , but use 'enumValue value' >> > >> > In general, it would be cool to have good 'enum type' converter.. >> > (despite that i will never use it, >> > because to my taste its not really worth it, and i can live with >> > integers and in most cases you hide such low-level details from >> > end-user anyways ;)) >> > but for those, who want more clarity and better structure in their >> > code, of course, they can use it . >> > > > I do not completely agree with you on this one (but you already now it). The > thing is that if we use integers then the user will have to constantly ask > which enum value should I pass here... The idea is to not expose enum values to user at all. Sometimes it easily doable, sometimes not.. it depends , of course.. But ideally, there should be only messages. > If you want that you can always have > it by declaring your function signature as #(void fct(int anEnumValue)) and > then call it with MyEnum DDD value (that's fine). Having an enum type > converter is very good for documenting the argument types (and automatically > checking them). True. But everything has its cost: in this case - performance. > So I think this should be the user choice. Moreover, I'm for > incremental development (and learning) so the way I see it is: When you > first implement the ffi wrapper just try to be as precise as you can be, > then after your library binding is done you can change some declarations to > use more 'low level types' (the underlying representation) for speed reasons > mainly (if it ever comes to that). > Yes. > But at the end I think we should give our users options, which will help > them make decisions based on their particular needs, not based on our "gut" > feeling ;) > I agree that this will be nice addition: for better coverage alien (C) data structures. I am totally with you on that. I just wanted to say that i never thought about it as a necessary part (simply because i can live without it). -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 13, 2012

[Pharo-project] [update 2.0] #20435

by Marcus Denker

20435 ----- Issue 7120: Make Print It deal better with errors in printString http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7120 Issue 7099: Integration of NewList in 2.0 (again) http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7099 Issue 7024: unify #compile:classified:withStamp:notifying:logSource: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7024 Diff information: http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Traits-MarcusDenker.447.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Text-MarcusDenker.46.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/NewList-MarcusDenker.11.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Morphic-MarcusDenker.1306.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Kernel-MarcusDenker.1267.diff

Dec. 13, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] another kid born: NBExternalEnumerationType

by Ciprian Teodorov

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 December 2012 03:08, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11 December 2012 20:33, Ciprian Teodorov <ciprian.teodorov(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> today I have commited to the NativeBoost repository a new core class, > the > >> NBExternalEnumerationType, > >> which reifies the enum declarations in C and offers a nice interface > >> (especially in terms of debug/inspect). > >> > >> To use it just subclass the NBExternalEnumeration and add an #enumDecl > >> method to the class side such as: > >> > >> NBExternalEnumeration subclass: #NBTestEnumeration > >> instanceVariableNames: '' > >> classVariableNames: '' > >> poolDictionaries: '' > >> category: 'NativeBoost-Tests' > >> > >> NBTestEnumeration class>>enumDecl > >> ^ {(#AAA -> 1). > >> (#BBB -> 2). > >> (#CCC -> 3). > >> (#DDD -> 2400)} asDictionary > >> > > just one comment: imo, it would be better to not force users to > > remember that they should use > > complicated syntax in this method. > > > > i propose following syntax: > > > > NBTestEnumeration class>>enumDecl > > ^ #( > > #AAA 1 > > #BBB -> 2 > > #CCC -> 3 > > #DDD -> 2400 > > ) > > > oops, of course it should be just pairs, e.g.: > #( A 1 B 2 C 3) > Yep this is a good idea for most cases so I'll integrate it. But there are > those cases where your enum has many items (more than the number of > literals we can have in a method), and I think in those cases having the > user give us a prebuilt dictionary is better. > > then you can have > > > > NBTestEnumeration class>>initializeEnum > > > > dict := Dictionary newFromPairs: self enumDecl > > ..... > > > > then #initialize should just do 'self initializeEnum' > > > > > > > >> DO NOT FORGET to call the #initialize method on your class. The rest is > >> automatically done ;) > >> > >> You can use your new enum in two ways: > >> > >> add it to a client class poolDictionaries list (see > #NBExternalEnumTests > >> for an example), and then just write CCC in your code -- CCC here is an > item > >> of your enum > >> or you can send the name of an item to your class --- NBTestEnumeration > DDD > >> > >> The NBExternalEnumeration implements (instance and class) some more API > >> methods like: > >> > >> #itemAt: retrieves the item having a specific value --- > NBTestEnumeration > >> itemAt: 2 > >> #includes: checks the existence of a specific item in the enum --- > >> NBTestEnumeration includes: #AAA > >> > >> Having this already gives us a nice interface to working with enums. > Now I > >> plan to improve a little bit on performance and usage scenarios: > >> > >> the possibility to accept smalltalk integers as valid input/output for > >> functions(or callbacks) that use enums as arguments/return. > >> support the different representation types for the enum values > (int/uint) > >> > > > > to my thinking, it not worth implementing separate type converter for > enums.. > > just put a note that if people would like to deal nicely with enums > > returned by function(s), > > they should use a converter , something like that: > > > > enumValue := MyEnumeration fromInteger: (self > callSomeFunctionReturningInt) > This is a good idea too. > > > > then this method can implement converting from int->enum object, > > as well as do a range checking etc. > > in same way, if people want to use 'enumValue' for passing it as > > parameter to external function, > > they should not pass it directly , but use 'enumValue value' > > > > In general, it would be cool to have good 'enum type' converter.. > > (despite that i will never use it, > > because to my taste its not really worth it, and i can live with > > integers and in most cases you hide such low-level details from > > end-user anyways ;)) > > but for those, who want more clarity and better structure in their > > code, of course, they can use it . > > > I do not completely agree with you on this one (but you already now it). The thing is that if we use integers then the user will have to constantly ask which enum value should I pass here... If you want that you can always have it by declaring your function signature as #(void fct(int anEnumValue)) and then call it with MyEnum DDD value (that's fine). Having an enum type converter is very good for documenting the argument types (and automatically checking them). So I think this should be the user choice. Moreover, I'm for incremental development (and learning) so the way I see it is: When you first implement the ffi wrapper just try to be as precise as you can be, then after your library binding is done you can change some declarations to use more 'low level types' (the underlying representation) for speed reasons mainly (if it ever comes to that). But at the end I think we should give our users options, which will help them make decisions based on their particular needs, not based on our "gut" feeling ;) > > >> So that will be for now. Feel free to try it out and send me any > comments > >> and/or improvement ideas, It will be my pleasure to improve it. > >> Cheers, > >> -- > >> Dr. Ciprian TEODOROV > >> IngÃ©nieur DÃ©veloppement CAO > >> > >> tÃ©l : 06 08 54 73 48 > >> mail : ciprian.teodorov(a)gmail.com > >> www.teodorov.ro > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Igor Stasenko. > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > -- Dr. Ciprian TEODOROV IngÃ©nieur DÃ©veloppement CAO tÃ©l : 06 08 54 73 48 mail : ciprian.teodorov(a)gmail.com www.teodorov.ro

Dec. 13, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Sean P. DeNigris

Chris Muller-4 wrote > While someone in the Pharo > community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an > incremental API change Can you still say that after reading http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted on a great work of art. Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went back to the standard tools. I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and makes these types of arguments moot: - Better for the better - Beauty to learn from - Not backward compatible - Clean, lean and fast Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/About-backwards-Compatibility-tp4658784p4659133.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 13, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)

by Igor Stasenko

a little followup.. Please, do not even try to say that FileDirectory and FileSystem is interchangeable :) Colin laid a foundation in a place where was no foundation at all. Yes, in Pharo we did some changes in order to 'make it work', polishing some rough corners, as well as writing tests and documenting the code. Without laying foundation, nobody starts to build houses.. (well, some do.. but they do not stay long). We even teach kids about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 13, 2012

[Pharo-project] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)

by Igor Stasenko

On 13 December 2012 03:59, Chris Muller <asqueaker(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by >>> you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is >>> feasible for me to use it in my business. While someone in the Pharo >>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. >>> >> incremental? >> do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or >> 'remotely connected database-based file system' >> by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory? >> good luck with such 'increments' :) > > Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring > work and little disruption to the API. That's the promise object > technology, encapsulation. > The main problem with FileDirectory that there's no API. I can hardly call a single class as API... as to me, it is clear that file system domain is a bit more complex and in order to reflect it properly in a language you will need more that a single role (FileDirectory). So, i really doubt that you end up with 'little disruption to API'. It will be substantial. > Colin made a gorgeous domain model of an abstract FileSystem, no doubt > about it. If we switch to it in Squeak I'm sure I will be happy once > the conversion is done. I just think its worth asking, though, > whether a "core" system should provide that rich a model > out-of-the-box or instead just a bland, one-layer-above-the-primitives > lightweight model ready to be easily wrapped by the user's _own_ rich > model of a FileSystem. Is the core system suitable for tiny embedded > programs and will they want a rich model or a basic one? Maybe Spoon > will allow us to have our cake and eat it too..? > To me, design comes first. ALWAYS. All of the rest is secondary. FileSystem establishing a clear separation between conceptual model and implementation detail. The value of such improvement is hard to underestimate: users can learn fast & grasp well how to use it (and even understand better how file systems work). Moreover, it makes FileSystem nicely portable among dialects.. So, in future, if you would like to port your application to another dialect, you'll have to port FileSystem backend, instead of walking over your whole application and do patches all over the place.. Because once you have sound API, an effort to port application gravitates down to zero. Also, porting, in broad sense can mean 'porting from version X to version Y' (speaking about 'backwards compatimilimulability). API establishing a set of rules in a domain & models. The point is that domain does not changes that often, comparing to implementation. That means , if you have a good design, you can be assured that it won't require serious changes and will serve you much much longer without need to change anything in userland code. (Take a Collection protocols for example). Also, once you have such set of rules, it is much easier for people to maintain implementation code, as well as adding extra functionality if needed. Clearly, VM interfaces (such as primitives) should be not exposed to language 'as is', but always come with API. Because if you don't have rules, then you have very poor maintainability inside of system, as well as forcing users to reinvent their own wheel over and over again.. And next thing, if you would want one day to change primitives or change VM.. you will immediately hit the wall, with bloody 'backwards compatibility' sign on it. Because you will discover, that every single application implements own abstraction layer(s) (or even worse, use low-level functionality directly) on top of what you provided. So, to me, your statement looks contradictory: from one side, you are seriously concerned about backwards compatibility, but from another one, you trying to ignore/discard the facts that you cannot have good backwards compatibility without having a design and API in a first place. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 13, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] NativeBoost and Pharo Kernel

by Igor Stasenko

On 12 December 2012 19:06, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Igor > > metacello can handle this situation and there is a doc. > We can give a try together. but this is not like we do not have the tool at hand. > yes, i am not saying that it cannot handle.. i just too lazy to spend time reading doc to figure how to do it :) > Stef > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> On 11 December 2012 09:51, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to ask: should NativeBoost be part of the Pharo Kernel? >>> Currently there are some minor issues like that AsmJit-Extension package >>> takes ownership of Integer>>#&, False>>#asBit and so on. >> >> This is because 1.4 don't have those methods, while 2.0. has (added by >> Camillo).. >> and so, currently , NB can either work on both, by making 2.0 image dirty >> or work only in 2.0, and fail to work in 1.4 because of "missing" methods. >> >> I am not very good in metacello-fu to write a confing, which will >> select various set of stuff to load >> depending on image version. >> So, if someone can help, i would appreciate that. >> I can move those methods into NB-pharo-1.4 package.. >> >> >>> Will NativeBoost be >>> more closely integrated with the kernel in the near future? >>> >> depends on what you putting into "kernel". >> if it is "a basic functionality, which is absolutely required to do >> anything else", >> then no, it will be never part of a kernel. >> >> if it is " a set of functionality, ready to use for most common/daily >> tasks" , then yes >> it should be part of such kernel.. >> >> >>> BTW, we need to integrate >>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7062 before any update that >>> will move methods between packages. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- Pavel >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 13, 2012

[Pharo-project] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)

by Chris Muller

>> I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by >> you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is >> feasible for me to use it in my business. While someone in the Pharo >> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. >> > incremental? > do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or > 'remotely connected database-based file system' > by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory? > good luck with such 'increments' :) Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring work and little disruption to the API. That's the promise object technology, encapsulation. Colin made a gorgeous domain model of an abstract FileSystem, no doubt about it. If we switch to it in Squeak I'm sure I will be happy once the conversion is done. I just think its worth asking, though, whether a "core" system should provide that rich a model out-of-the-box or instead just a bland, one-layer-above-the-primitives lightweight model ready to be easily wrapped by the user's _own_ rich model of a FileSystem. Is the core system suitable for tiny embedded programs and will they want a rich model or a basic one? Maybe Spoon will allow us to have our cake and eat it too..?

Dec. 13, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] NativeBoost and Pharo Kernel

by Igor Stasenko

On 11 December 2012 20:26, Paul DeBruicker <pdebruic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Igor Stasenko wrote >> I am not very good in metacello-fu to write a confing, which will >> select various set of stuff to load >> depending on image version. >> So, if someone can help, i would appreciate that. >> I can move those methods into NB-pharo-1.4 package.. >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. > > > Where is the NB config kept? I could take a look this weekend. > on sqs/NativeBoost > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-and-Pharo-Kernel-tp4658786p4658896.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 13, 2012