January 2013 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] FileSystem inconsistency

by Jimmie Houchin

On 1/8/2013 10:35 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > We wrote a chapter on FileSystem. > Did you miss it? > > http://rmod.lille.inria.fr/pbe2/ > > Stef Thanks Stef. I had not seen that. Jimmie

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] FileSystem inconsistency

by Jimmie Houchin

On 1/8/2013 10:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > Jimmie Houchin wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I was writing a small utility using FileSystem. I had never used >> FileSystem before. So I am browsing the code trying to learn where to >> start and how to use it. >> >> It took me a little while to learn to do something like: >> fs := FileSystem store: (DiskStore activeClass createDefault). >> >> It would be nice if there were an instance creation method like >> FileSystem createDefault which would do the above. >> >> My utility was renaming some files. Once I had acquired a >> FileSystemDirectoryEntry instance I needed to examine the name. >> >> I see #basename and #fullName. As I browse other classes I see >> #childNamesAt: and #pathName, etc. >> >> I was just curious why #basename and not #baseName? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jimmie >> >> > > Perhaps wide use of 'basename' as a single word has been previously > established ? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basename > Yes, that is established in Unix as per your link. But we are talking about Pharo Smalltalk. In the article you mention above they also refer to pathname, while in FileSystem it is #pathName. So we are not adhering to the standard of the article mentioned either. We are not consistent to any standard, ours or theirs. I can understand previous standards and usages. I can understand legacy. But FileSystem is Smalltalk and FileSystem is new, replacing legacy code. I am not advocating anything. Just saying to a new user, with fresh eyes, it is inconsistent. Thanks. Jimmie

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] TalkFFI: automatic FFI generation for Pharo

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> On 01/06/2013 05:22 PM, Ciprian Teodorov wrote: >> Happy new year everybody! >> >> I am pleased to announce today the initial release of TalkFFI. > > Wow! I have been waiting for something "SWIG" like for Squeak/Pharo since... hell, I dunno, since like ever. ;) > > This kind of stuff might very well be the most important "piece" of the puzzle when it comes to *really* growing Pharo outside of the general Smalltalk community. yes! :) Let us escape the image :)

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] FileSystem inconsistency

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

We wrote a chapter on FileSystem. Did you miss it? http://rmod.lille.inria.fr/pbe2/ Stef On Jan 8, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: > Hello, > > I was writing a small utility using FileSystem. I had never used FileSystem before. So I am browsing the code trying to learn where to start and how to use it. > > It took me a little while to learn to do something like: > fs := FileSystem store: (DiskStore activeClass createDefault). > > It would be nice if there were an instance creation method like > FileSystem createDefault which would do the above. > > My utility was renaming some files. Once I had acquired a FileSystemDirectoryEntry instance I needed to examine the name. > > I see #basename and #fullName. As I browse other classes I see #childNamesAt: and #pathName, etc. > > I was just curious why #basename and not #baseName? > > Thanks. > > Jimmie >

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] Spec news

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I will check. May be this evening. We transformed systematically defaultSpec ^ { #ComposableSpec. #add:. { self topSpec. #layout:. {#LayoutFrame. #fractions:offsets:. (0@0 corner: 1@0). (0@0 corner: 0@20). }}. #add:. {{#model. #container.}. #layout:. {#LayoutFrame. #fractions:offsets:. (0@0 corner: 1@1). (0@22 corner: 0@0). }}} into defaultSpec ^ { #ComposableSpec. #add:. { self topSpec. #layout:. #(0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20) }. #add:. {{#model . #container } . #layout: . #(0 0 1 1 0 22 0 0) } } So I do not see why this is different from what we did. Stef > It does in plugin specs, for example > > defaultSpec > > ^{ #ComposableSpec. > #vResizing:. #shrinkWrap. > #add:. {{self. #textModel}. > #layout:. #(0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0)}. > } > > -- Pavel > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Benjamin > <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Can you show me your SpecLayout please ? >> >> >> Ben >> >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote: >> >>> Hi Stef, >>> >>> get it here: >>> >>> Gofer new >>> smalltalkhubUser: 'PavelKrivanek' project: 'Periscope'; >>> package: 'Periscope'; >>> load. >>> >>> activate with: >>> >>> Nautilus pluginClasses add: {(Smalltalk at: #NautilusPeriscopePlugin). #none} . >>> >>> I tried to change it to the array form but it doesn't help. This is >>> the error stack: >>> >>> #('Array(Object)' 'doesNotUnderstand: #layoutFrame:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'actionToPerformWithSelector:arguments:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('[...] in SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('Array(SequenceableCollection)' 'collect:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'retreiveSpecFrom:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('[...] in SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('Array(SequenceableCollection)' 'collect:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> >>> -- Pavel >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse >>> <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> trying to run Periscope on the latest Pharo image, I see that >>>>> everything is broken again. Please, start to write some documentation >>>>> about Spec development, what have you changed, what do you plan to >>>>> change, what are the new prefered ways to write UI specification and >>>>> how to migrate old code. At least write some short mails here. >>>> >>>> Hi pavel >>>> >>>> where is your code? >>>> Because we did a massive refactoring with igor to free layoutFrame users from the tyranny of fractions:offset: >>>> >>>> so you can have a look at some spec in the latest 20 and you will see that now >>>> we use >>>> >>>> >>>> #layout: . #(0 0 1 1 0 22 0 0) >>>> >>>> when it was >>>> #layout: >>>> {#LayoutFrame . #fractions:offsets:. (0@0 corner: 1@0). (0@0 corner: 0@20). >>>> >>>> >>>> Now may be LayoutFrame should not be in morphic so that Spec is independent from Morphic but for now we prefered to avoid >>>> to have reference to LayoutFrame and more important use of #fractions:offsets: >>>> >>>> Esteban will start to work on a UIBuilder because we do not want to have to code such methods and he will do a pass on Spec. >>>> After we will stabilize it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I know, it is a lot of work but we cannot write tools and bindings to >>>>> other user interface if the basic UI framework is undocumented and >>>>> changing silently. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -- Pavel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] FileSystem inconsistency

by Ben Coman

Jimmie Houchin wrote: > Hello, > > I was writing a small utility using FileSystem. I had never used > FileSystem before. So I am browsing the code trying to learn where to > start and how to use it. > > It took me a little while to learn to do something like: > fs := FileSystem store: (DiskStore activeClass createDefault). > > It would be nice if there were an instance creation method like > FileSystem createDefault which would do the above. > > My utility was renaming some files. Once I had acquired a > FileSystemDirectoryEntry instance I needed to examine the name. > > I see #basename and #fullName. As I browse other classes I see > #childNamesAt: and #pathName, etc. > > I was just curious why #basename and not #baseName? > > Thanks. > > Jimmie > > Perhaps wide use of 'basename' as a single word has been previously established ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basename

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] Spec news

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> Hi pavel >> >> where is your code? >> Because we did a massive refactoring with igor to free layoutFrame users from the tyranny of fractions:offset: >> >> so you can have a look at some spec in the latest 20 and you will see that now >> we use >> >> >> #layout: . #(0 0 1 1 0 22 0 0) > > why ?????? > Why using a meaningless array when we could use object ? because we want to deprecate the use of fractions:offsets: So if you do not have fractions:offsets: then you should find a way (for spec) to create a layout. So we introduce a literal format and below the scene we are using a layoutFrame. > Ben > >> >> when it was >> #layout: >> {#LayoutFrame . #fractions:offsets:. (0@0 corner: 1@0). (0@0 corner: 0@20). >> >> >> Now may be LayoutFrame should not be in morphic so that Spec is independent from Morphic but for now we prefered to avoid >> to have reference to LayoutFrame and more important use of #fractions:offsets: >> >> Esteban will start to work on a UIBuilder because we do not want to have to code such methods and he will do a pass on Spec. >> After we will stabilize it. >> >> >>> I know, it is a lot of work but we cannot write tools and bindings to >>> other user interface if the basic UI framework is undocumented and >>> changing silently. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- Pavel >>> >> >> > >

Jan. 8, 2013

[Pharo-project] FileSystem inconsistency

by Jimmie Houchin

Hello, I was writing a small utility using FileSystem. I had never used FileSystem before. So I am browsing the code trying to learn where to start and how to use it. It took me a little while to learn to do something like: fs := FileSystem store: (DiskStore activeClass createDefault). It would be nice if there were an instance creation method like FileSystem createDefault which would do the above. My utility was renaming some files. Once I had acquired a FileSystemDirectoryEntry instance I needed to examine the name. I see #basename and #fullName. As I browse other classes I see #childNamesAt: and #pathName, etc. I was just curious why #basename and not #baseName? Thanks. Jimmie

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] Spec news

by Benjamin

it seems that #layout is expecting a LayoutFrame as argument. But since I do not know what Stef and Igor changed (and what they didn't fix ^^) I can't tell more than that :s And I do not have too much time right now, sorry Ben On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote: > It does in plugin specs, for example > > defaultSpec > > ^{ #ComposableSpec. > #vResizing:. #shrinkWrap. > #add:. {{self. #textModel}. > #layout:. #(0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0)}. > } > > -- Pavel > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Benjamin > <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Can you show me your SpecLayout please ? >> >> >> Ben >> >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote: >> >>> Hi Stef, >>> >>> get it here: >>> >>> Gofer new >>> smalltalkhubUser: 'PavelKrivanek' project: 'Periscope'; >>> package: 'Periscope'; >>> load. >>> >>> activate with: >>> >>> Nautilus pluginClasses add: {(Smalltalk at: #NautilusPeriscopePlugin). #none} . >>> >>> I tried to change it to the array form but it doesn't help. This is >>> the error stack: >>> >>> #('Array(Object)' 'doesNotUnderstand: #layoutFrame:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'actionToPerformWithSelector:arguments:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('[...] in SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('Array(SequenceableCollection)' 'collect:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'retreiveSpecFrom:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('[...] in SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('Array(SequenceableCollection)' 'collect:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >>> >>> -- Pavel >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse >>> <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> trying to run Periscope on the latest Pharo image, I see that >>>>> everything is broken again. Please, start to write some documentation >>>>> about Spec development, what have you changed, what do you plan to >>>>> change, what are the new prefered ways to write UI specification and >>>>> how to migrate old code. At least write some short mails here. >>>> >>>> Hi pavel >>>> >>>> where is your code? >>>> Because we did a massive refactoring with igor to free layoutFrame users from the tyranny of fractions:offset: >>>> >>>> so you can have a look at some spec in the latest 20 and you will see that now >>>> we use >>>> >>>> >>>> #layout: . #(0 0 1 1 0 22 0 0) >>>> >>>> when it was >>>> #layout: >>>> {#LayoutFrame . #fractions:offsets:. (0@0 corner: 1@0). (0@0 corner: 0@20). >>>> >>>> >>>> Now may be LayoutFrame should not be in morphic so that Spec is independent from Morphic but for now we prefered to avoid >>>> to have reference to LayoutFrame and more important use of #fractions:offsets: >>>> >>>> Esteban will start to work on a UIBuilder because we do not want to have to code such methods and he will do a pass on Spec. >>>> After we will stabilize it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I know, it is a lot of work but we cannot write tools and bindings to >>>>> other user interface if the basic UI framework is undocumented and >>>>> changing silently. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -- Pavel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >

Jan. 8, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] Spec news

by Pavel Krivanek

It does in plugin specs, for example defaultSpec ^{ #ComposableSpec. #vResizing:. #shrinkWrap. #add:. {{self. #textModel}. #layout:. #(0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0)}. } -- Pavel On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can you show me your SpecLayout please ? > > > Ben > > On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote: > >> Hi Stef, >> >> get it here: >> >> Gofer new >> smalltalkhubUser: 'PavelKrivanek' project: 'Periscope'; >> package: 'Periscope'; >> load. >> >> activate with: >> >> Nautilus pluginClasses add: {(Smalltalk at: #NautilusPeriscopePlugin). #none} . >> >> I tried to change it to the array form but it doesn't help. This is >> the error stack: >> >> #('Array(Object)' 'doesNotUnderstand: #layoutFrame:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'actionToPerformWithSelector:arguments:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('[...] in SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >> #('Array(SequenceableCollection)' 'collect:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'retreiveSpecFrom:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('[...] in SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >> #('Array(SequenceableCollection)' 'collect:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'private_interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> #('SpecInterpreter class' 'interpretASpec:model:superSpec:') >> >> -- Pavel >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse >> <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ben, >>>> >>>> trying to run Periscope on the latest Pharo image, I see that >>>> everything is broken again. Please, start to write some documentation >>>> about Spec development, what have you changed, what do you plan to >>>> change, what are the new prefered ways to write UI specification and >>>> how to migrate old code. At least write some short mails here. >>> >>> Hi pavel >>> >>> where is your code? >>> Because we did a massive refactoring with igor to free layoutFrame users from the tyranny of fractions:offset: >>> >>> so you can have a look at some spec in the latest 20 and you will see that now >>> we use >>> >>> >>> #layout: . #(0 0 1 1 0 22 0 0) >>> >>> when it was >>> #layout: >>> {#LayoutFrame . #fractions:offsets:. (0@0 corner: 1@0). (0@0 corner: 0@20). >>> >>> >>> Now may be LayoutFrame should not be in morphic so that Spec is independent from Morphic but for now we prefered to avoid >>> to have reference to LayoutFrame and more important use of #fractions:offsets: >>> >>> Esteban will start to work on a UIBuilder because we do not want to have to code such methods and he will do a pass on Spec. >>> After we will stabilize it. >>> >>> >>>> I know, it is a lot of work but we cannot write tools and bindings to >>>> other user interface if the basic UI framework is undocumented and >>>> changing silently. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -- Pavel >>>> >>> >>> >> > >

Jan. 8, 2013