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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-10-30, at 21:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>>>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>>>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >>>> >>>> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >>>> >>>> But, >>>> >>>> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >>>> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >>>> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >>>> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >>>> >>>> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >>>> >>>> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >>>> >>>> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) >>> >>> I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) >> >> I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/ > > But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ? > > I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so... > > And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests. Sadly yes. We spent quite some time with Damien Pollet to get a better version, we ended up with a 2-pass approach to first detect blocks an then do the span analysis. This way you get quite far, but still, it is not very well defined.

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] About BitBlt current -> BitBlt (Fuel)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Fuel was using BitBlt current and I change that to BitBlt Stef On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stef, what exactly is the influence on Fuel? I looked at the changes of your slice and couldnât find anythingâ¦ > > Max > > > On 25.10.2013, at 16:26, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I just pushed a change cleaning some strange usage. >> BitBlt was sometimes invoked via BitBlt current (which just returned the BitBlt class). >> Apparently in Squeak they removed it too. >> >> Now it touches Fuel so Fuel guys can you merge on your side too? >> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12009/BitBlt-current-BitBlt >> >> Stef > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>>> >>>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >>> >>> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >>> >>> But, >>> >>> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >>> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >>> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >>> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >>> >>> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >>> >>> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >>> >>> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) >> >> I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) > > I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/ But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ? I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so... And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests.

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] About SqNumberParser

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

nay step documenting the system from its inside is good. > > - leave only the one clues that is currently used > - write down the syntax that is provided > - then one can think about what is odd and what is missing > - improve parser if needed

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] missing updates: 30503 30504

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> >> >>> Things got updated: >>> >>> The tracker job https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-1-Tracker/ has >>> now a version number check + the recent pharo version allows the #update command line handler >>> to detect if wrong update files were specified. Together with Stef's fix to always >>> merge updates the update process should now be more stable. >> Tx camillo. >> >> Pay attention that my change is to ignore conflict warning > > I am not fully sure about that, since there are two steps required: > 1. MCMergeOrLoadWarning > 2. MergeResolutionRequest > > From what I got, you only deal with the first one, indeed so this is even better :) > which asks the user if he wants > to merge or not (which for instance in git never happens). The second one actually > does the merging. I am pretty much convinced that we don't need the two of them, since > I see that we basically spread the following code all over the place: > > [aLoadBlock > on: MCMergeOrLoadWarning do: [ :request | request merge ]] > on: MCMergeResolutionRequest do: [ :request | request autoMerge ]. > > The real merge conflict is only available in the MCMergeResolutionRequest, before it > is a warning that is solely based on whether a package is dirty or not, a very crude > approximation of a conflict...

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] smalltalkhub down

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Oct 28, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall(a)netcetera.ch> wrote: > On 26.10.13 14:21, Sebastian Sastre wrote: >> 10 hours later we're still down... > > Calls for blog post [1] ;-) > > [1] https://github.com/blog/1346-network-problems-last-friday I'm quite sure that we we get 5% of the money of github for Smalltalkhub we can do a blog post too. Too bad we do not get these 5% not even 1% > > Cheers > Philippe > > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Camillo Bruni

>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>> >>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >> >> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >> >> But, >> >> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >> >> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >> >> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >> >> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) > > I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Yuriy Tymchuk

On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:36, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:24, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> >> On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>> 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? >>> >>> >>> markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you >>> highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-) >> >> If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown. >> >>> >>> >>>> 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. >>> >>> >>> because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we >>> can add the features we need. >>> >>> >>>> Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. >>> >>> >>> I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than >>> LaTeX. We want people to write books easily. >> >> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >> >> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. > > I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. > > But, > > - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants > - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) > - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere > - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified > > Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. > > As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. > > I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) > >> Cheers. >> Uko >> >>> >>> -- >>> Damien Cassou >>> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >>> >>> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >>> losing enthusiasm." >>> Winston Churchill

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:24, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>> 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? >> >> >> markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you >> highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-) > > If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown. > >> >> >>> 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. >> >> >> because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we >> can add the features we need. >> >> >>> Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. >> >> >> I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than >> LaTeX. We want people to write books easily. > > Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. > On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… > And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. > > Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. But, - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) > Cheers. > Uko > >> >> -- >> Damien Cassou >> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >> >> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >> losing enthusiasm." >> Winston Churchill

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Losing instance variable addition

by Luc Fabresse

Hi All, I remember encountering the same problem somewhere and we fastly solved it using a preLoadDoit (I do not remember the exact name now) method of the ConfigurationOfOurProject in which we tested if the iv was there and if not added it. Cheers, #Luc 2013/10/30 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > Note that this is quite bad (and limit of MC) because it means that the > people are forced to copy the package, do the modification > and publish and do that each time the mother package will change. > > Stef > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 7:15 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > > > Ok in fact > > Gisela forked the AST-Core package to be able to load a new version with > the instance variables. > > Because there is no way to say that a class definition modification is > attached to a given package. > > > > Stef > > > >> Apparently the problem is that gisela is adding instance variable to a > class that is not in the Flamel package. > >> So it was working before but not anymore. > >> > >> Stef > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi guys > >>> > >>> we are losing instance variables addition when loading a package. > >>> Here is the example: > >>> > >>> Gofer new > >>> url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/gisela/Flamel/main'; > >>> version: 'Flamel-GiselaDecuzzi.94'; > >>> load > >>> > >>> Normally RBProgramNode should have three new instance variables and > not this is not the case. > >>> Is it a known bug? > >>> > >>> Stef > >> > >> > > > > >

Oct. 30, 2013