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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unwind error during termination

by Eliot Miranda

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>wrote: > OK I'll wait for another use case or until it happened to me. Like a > usecase from a fresh image. > > It's just it may be due to the new inspector, new debugger or new > compiler. Just wondering. > It's definitely not due to the new code. I see it occasionally in Squeak images without Opal. > > > 2013/10/24 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Ok I have the error too. >>> >>> Strangely enough, the error is triggered because the third >>> BlockClosure>>#on:do: context has 2 temporaries instead of 3. >>> >>> Igor / Esteban do you have a clue ? Why a context would have less >>> temporaries than expected ? Problem from context creation out of the stack ? >>> >> >> No. It'll be popping too much off the stack. See e.g. ContextPart>>jump. >> >> >>> >>> I will try to find some time to look at this problem. Though it is not >>> an easy one it will take some time to be fixed. >>> >>> >>> 2013/10/24 <btc(a)openinworld.com> >>> >>> ** >>>> ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I'm interested. >>>> >>>> Please send me the image in private mail not to overload the mailing list >>>> with large attachment. >>>> Alternatively, give me a place where I can download it. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://files.openinworld.com/Pharo/PharoLauncher-Unwind-Error.zip >>>> >>>> The steps to reproduce are: open the image, execute 1halt, close debugger ? >>>> >>>> >>>> There are three debuggers already open. Just close them. The third >>>> close generates the error. >>>> A confounding factor may be your running this on a different VM. This >>>> is mine... >>>> >>>> http://files.openinworld.com/Pharo/PharoLauncher-Unwind-Error-VM.zip >>>> >>>> Win32 built on Mar 13 2013 18:49:42 Compiler: 4.6.2 >>>> VMMaker versionString git://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed.git Commit: >>>> 412abef33cbed05cf1d75329e451d71c0c6aa5a7 Date: 2013-03-13 17:48:50 +0100 >>>> By: Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>Jenkins build #14535 >>>> NBCoInterpreter NativeBoost-CogPlugin-EstebanLorenzano.18 uuid: >>>> a53445f9-c0c0-4015-97a3-be7db8d9ed6b Mar 13 2013 >>>> NBCogit NativeBoost-CogPlugin-EstebanLorenzano.18 uuid: >>>> a53445f9-c0c0-4015-97a3-be7db8d9ed6b Mar 13 2013 >>>> >>>> The error still occurs if I try the image on the latest VM, but then >>>> again the effect may already be in effect. >>>> >>>> btw, Its not directly causing me pain since I can continue in the >>>> image, but still thanks for checking it out for general improvements. >>>> >>>> cheers -ben >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/10/22 <btc(a)openinworld.com> <btc(a)openinworld.com> >>>> >>>> ** >>>> For a while now, every now and then when closing a debugger I have been >>>> getting an "Unwind error during termination" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I happened to have saved the image moments before it just occurred again. >>>> From opening that save error can be reliably triggered in three clicks. >>>> I can provide this image if anyone is interested in it. >>>> >>>> cheers -ben >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> best, >> Eliot >> > > -- best, Eliot

Oct. 24, 2013

ensureCreateDirectory?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Out of curiosity, what was the motivation behind Issue 10924: Simplifying ensure* and create protocol? For me #ensureCreateDirectory is less intention revealing than #ensureDirectory because the "ensure" means "create only if necessary", not "definitely create" a directory. What am I missing? Thanks. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/ensureCreateDirectory-tp4716925.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unwind error during termination

by ClÃ©ment Bera

OK I'll wait for another use case or until it happened to me. Like a usecase from a fresh image. It's just it may be due to the new inspector, new debugger or new compiler. Just wondering. 2013/10/24 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> Ok I have the error too. >> >> Strangely enough, the error is triggered because the third >> BlockClosure>>#on:do: context has 2 temporaries instead of 3. >> >> Igor / Esteban do you have a clue ? Why a context would have less >> temporaries than expected ? Problem from context creation out of the stack ? >> > > No. It'll be popping too much off the stack. See e.g. ContextPart>>jump. > > >> >> I will try to find some time to look at this problem. Though it is not an >> easy one it will take some time to be fixed. >> >> >> 2013/10/24 <btc(a)openinworld.com> >> >> ** >>> ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm interested. >>> >>> Please send me the image in private mail not to overload the mailing list >>> with large attachment. >>> Alternatively, give me a place where I can download it. >>> >>> >>> http://files.openinworld.com/Pharo/PharoLauncher-Unwind-Error.zip >>> >>> The steps to reproduce are: open the image, execute 1halt, close debugger ? >>> >>> >>> There are three debuggers already open. Just close them. The third >>> close generates the error. >>> A confounding factor may be your running this on a different VM. This >>> is mine... >>> >>> http://files.openinworld.com/Pharo/PharoLauncher-Unwind-Error-VM.zip >>> >>> Win32 built on Mar 13 2013 18:49:42 Compiler: 4.6.2 >>> VMMaker versionString git://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed.git Commit: >>> 412abef33cbed05cf1d75329e451d71c0c6aa5a7 Date: 2013-03-13 17:48:50 +0100 >>> By: Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>Jenkins build #14535 >>> NBCoInterpreter NativeBoost-CogPlugin-EstebanLorenzano.18 uuid: >>> a53445f9-c0c0-4015-97a3-be7db8d9ed6b Mar 13 2013 >>> NBCogit NativeBoost-CogPlugin-EstebanLorenzano.18 uuid: >>> a53445f9-c0c0-4015-97a3-be7db8d9ed6b Mar 13 2013 >>> >>> The error still occurs if I try the image on the latest VM, but then >>> again the effect may already be in effect. >>> >>> btw, Its not directly causing me pain since I can continue in the image, >>> but still thanks for checking it out for general improvements. >>> >>> cheers -ben >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/10/22 <btc(a)openinworld.com> <btc(a)openinworld.com> >>> >>> ** >>> For a while now, every now and then when closing a debugger I have been >>> getting an "Unwind error during termination" >>> >>> >>> >>> I happened to have saved the image moments before it just occurred again. >>> From opening that save error can be reliably triggered in three clicks. >>> I can provide this image if anyone is interested in it. >>> >>> cheers -ben >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > best, > Eliot >

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unwind error during termination

by Eliot Miranda

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Ok I have the error too. > > Strangely enough, the error is triggered because the third > BlockClosure>>#on:do: context has 2 temporaries instead of 3. > > Igor / Esteban do you have a clue ? Why a context would have less > temporaries than expected ? Problem from context creation out of the stack ? > No. It'll be popping too much off the stack. See e.g. ContextPart>>jump. > > I will try to find some time to look at this problem. Though it is not an > easy one it will take some time to be fixed. > > > 2013/10/24 <btc(a)openinworld.com> > > ** >> ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm interested. >> >> Please send me the image in private mail not to overload the mailing list >> with large attachment. >> Alternatively, give me a place where I can download it. >> >> >> http://files.openinworld.com/Pharo/PharoLauncher-Unwind-Error.zip >> >> The steps to reproduce are: open the image, execute 1halt, close debugger ? >> >> >> There are three debuggers already open. Just close them. The third >> close generates the error. >> A confounding factor may be your running this on a different VM. This is >> mine... >> >> http://files.openinworld.com/Pharo/PharoLauncher-Unwind-Error-VM.zip >> >> Win32 built on Mar 13 2013 18:49:42 Compiler: 4.6.2 >> VMMaker versionString git://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed.git Commit: >> 412abef33cbed05cf1d75329e451d71c0c6aa5a7 Date: 2013-03-13 17:48:50 +0100 >> By: Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>Jenkins build #14535 >> NBCoInterpreter NativeBoost-CogPlugin-EstebanLorenzano.18 uuid: >> a53445f9-c0c0-4015-97a3-be7db8d9ed6b Mar 13 2013 >> NBCogit NativeBoost-CogPlugin-EstebanLorenzano.18 uuid: >> a53445f9-c0c0-4015-97a3-be7db8d9ed6b Mar 13 2013 >> >> The error still occurs if I try the image on the latest VM, but then >> again the effect may already be in effect. >> >> btw, Its not directly causing me pain since I can continue in the image, >> but still thanks for checking it out for general improvements. >> >> cheers -ben >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> 2013/10/22 <btc(a)openinworld.com> <btc(a)openinworld.com> >> >> ** >> For a while now, every now and then when closing a debugger I have been >> getting an "Unwind error during termination" >> >> >> >> I happened to have saved the image moments before it just occurred again. >> From opening that save error can be reliably triggered in three clicks. >> I can provide this image if anyone is interested in it. >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> >> >> > -- best, Eliot

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:32, Levente Uzonyi <leves(a)elte.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >>> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing assertion. >> >> This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make life easier for anybody developing Pharo or using Pharo. This doesn't improve Pharo in any way. >> >> This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing code. > > <rant> > It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" > </rant> <annoyed> Please go write those kind of comments on squeak-dev, nobody from Pharo ever does this on squeak-dev, ever. </annoyed> > > Levente > >> >> If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right solution IMHO is to write a SLint rule. >> >> Cheers >> Philippe

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

by Marcus Denker

On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:32, Levente Uzonyi <leves(a)elte.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >>> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing assertion. >> >> This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make life easier for anybody developing Pharo or using Pharo. This doesn't improve Pharo in any way. >> >> This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing code. > > <rant> > It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" > </rant> > And I still think that this was the best decision we ever took. It will allow us to have a future. Marcus

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

by Levente Uzonyi

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >> see my long explanation here >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing >> assertion. > > This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more > flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make the system any > easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, > scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. This > doesn't make life easier for anybody developing Pharo or using Pharo. This > doesn't improve Pharo in any way. > > This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing code. <rant> It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" </rant> Levente > > If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right solution IMHO > is to write a SLint rule. > > Cheers > Philippe > > >

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

by Igor Stasenko

On 24 October 2013 15:40, Philippe Marschall < philippe.marschall(a)netcetera.ch> wrote: > On 24.10.13 15:24, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall >> <philippe.marschall(a)netcetera.**ch <philippe.marschall(a)netcetera.ch> >> <mailto:philippe.marschall@**netcetera.ch<philippe.marschall(a)netcetera.ch>>> >> wrote: >> >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >> >> see my long explanation here >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/__**default.asp?11876#87218<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/__default.asp?11876#87218> >> >> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/**default.asp?11876#87218<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218> >> > >> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a >> failing assertion. >> >> >> This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any >> more flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make >> the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any >> smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system >> any easier to maintain. This doesn't make life easier for anybody >> developing Pharo or using Pharo. This doesn't improve Pharo in any >> way. >> >> This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing >> code. >> >> If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right >> solution IMHO is to write a SLint rule. >> >> >> Running SLint over tests? I could agree the working code should be >> checked for rules.. but tests? >> > > Yes. Test should have the same quality standards as the rest of the code > because you'll have to maintain them just the same. Our tests have to be > portable like the rest of our code. > > Well, if you putting such high quality standards on Seaside, then logically i would expect more understanding from your side that people here also want to have quality standards for Pharo as well. And this issue with #shouldn't lies exactly in this plane. Because rephrasing you, running SLint on tests << doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain.>> :) Cheers > Philippe > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Smalltalkhub commit dates broken?

by Stephan Eggermont

Nico wrote: >The creation of the MC packages are from today too? Name: PetitDelphi-StephanEggermont.129 Author: StephanEggermont Time: 24 October 2013, 3:54:21.159 pm UUID: b310f98a-41cf-4dd6-8be4-d1954ae69e4b Ancestors: PetitDelphi-StephanEggermont.128 Moved some AST classes

Oct. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Smalltalkhub commit dates broken?

by Nicolas Petton

The creation of the MC packages are from today too? Cheers, Nico Stephan Eggermont writes: > Commit dates seem to be wrong. I committed a few packages in Moose/PetitDelphi today, > and find them back as 17/05/2013 > > Stephan -- Nicolas Petton http://nicolas-petton.fr

Oct. 24, 2013