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

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/30490 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

Oct. 16, 2013

[pharo-project/pharo-core] 520a96: 30490

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/3.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 520a9664e560cbc532b83eba4a14d490b1673625 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/520a9664e560cbc532b83eba… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2013-10-16 (Wed, 16 Oct 2013) Changed paths: M Collections-Strings.package/Symbol.class/instance/converting/separateKeywords.st A Collections-Unordered.package/Dictionary.class/instance/accessing/bindingOf_.st A Collections-Unordered.package/Dictionary.class/instance/enumerating/bindingsDo_.st R Compiler.package/extension/Dictionary/instance/bindingOf_.st R Compiler.package/extension/Dictionary/instance/bindingsDo_.st A Kernel-Methods.package/CompiledMethod.class/instance/accessing/codeForNoSource.st M Kernel-Methods.package/CompiledMethod.class/instance/accessing/sourceCode.st M OpalCompiler-Core-FrontEnd.package/OpalCompiler.class/class/old - decompiler/decompileMethod_.st M OpalCompiler-Core-FrontEnd.package/OpalCompiler.class/class/old - decompiler/decompile_in_.st M OpalCompiler-Core-FrontEnd.package/OpalCompiler.class/class/old - decompiler/decompile_in_method_.st M OpalCompiler-Core-FrontEnd.package/OpalCompiler.class/instance/old - decompiler/decompileMethod_.st M OpalCompiler-Core.package/extension/CompiledMethod/instance/decompile.st M OpalCompiler-Core.package/extension/CompiledMethod/instance/decompileString.st A OpalCompiler-Core.package/extension/Symbol/instance/asMethodPreamble.st A ScriptLoader30.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script145.st A ScriptLoader30.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update30490.st M ScriptLoader30.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st Log Message: ----------- 30490 11107 never call decompiler, add a #codeForNoSource backstop to CompiledMethod https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11107 http://files.pharo.org/image/30/30490.zip

Oct. 16, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] TxText status (was Re: bug: [4993] Typing cmd+L cancel all typing and we can't undo it [Terminated] )

by Igor Stasenko

On 16 October 2013 04:02, <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > ** > I guess Phil is referring to the difficulties of the current undo > mechanism, which you've already discovered. > One of the problems with web interfaces to a mailling-list is sometimes > losing context. (I'm using Thunderbird 2.0 and it doesn't do threads.) > > btw, What is the plan/schdule for TxText integration into Pharo mainline? > > we plan to put it into image. right now i have early version which kind of works :) but i need to do some cleanup and wrapping-up before i will agree to put it into image. just discussed this with Stephane yesterday, and we agreed to have 2 weeks on it. next stage would be to go for deeper integration of it with tools etc. > cheers -ben > > > > kilon wrote: > > philippeback wrote > > > Don't enter that if you aren't ready to invest a couple of weeks. > TxText will change it all anyway. > > Disclaimer: I spent the couple of weeks. > > Phil > > > Sorry don't understand what you mean . Are you referring to me ? Enter what > ? > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/bug-4993-Typing-cmd-L-cancel-all-typing-and-we-can-t-… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Oct. 16, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Igor Stasenko

On 15 October 2013 18:36, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2013 11:06 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > *From: *Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > > > >> Progress is possible, > > > Indeed it is. And moving from proportional to mono-spaced fonts is not > progress, it is regress. > > >> perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95. >> > > I didn't say it was. I said that systems designed with a coherent > aesthetics and philosophy are more coherent, powerful and comprehensible > than those which are not. > > > yes, they are, I agree with that, and that's what we are trying to > achieve... advancing one small step at a time, because we cannot doit all > together, sadly. > What I do not see is how proportional fonts fits more with a pharo > coherence (which in my pov does not exists today) than a monospaced one. > > > But the change is away from proportional to monospace. I think the sale > must be made as to what does that actually buy us. How does this improve > our experience, pharo coherence? > > It seems that many of us here don't believe that it provides that > coherence of UI/UX that your hoping to move us towards. > > So when changing from what we have, it seems that it needs to demonstrated > that the change is for the better and not neutral or worse. > > I personally don't buy the it is less foreign to non-Smalltalkers > argument. non-Smalltalkers would just move their distaste of Smalltalk > somewhere else. Why do we have to use the image? Why can't I use Emacs, > vim, Eclipse? Its all very personal and sometimes very visceral. > > I have seen some visceral comments from Igor regarding Python. I could > make some from the C++ I've been looking at. > > ah.. python. yes, i hate their choice of using white space as part of language syntax. That is really retarded choice. And actually the roots of my disdain of it is same why i prefer proportional fonts: i like text, where white space is variable and not fixed, and used to make the text more readable, and ergonomically fit within its boundaries (like in newspaper column). If for people it would be easier to read text printed with monospaced font, then it would be like that long before first computer display appear in the world. Therefore, the whole idea that monospaced font is more readable is moot. I could justify such choice if we would have certain technical limitations (of the past), which forcing us to use less memory and text terminals.. but we're not.. We need to be the best open source Smalltalk-like experience. And not be > constrained to other languages/editors/environments constraints and views > on the world. > > So those who choose to advocate for a change. Advocate. Make the sale. > Or else lets not make the change. > > Jimmie > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Oct. 16, 2013

[regression reporter]regression occurred

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation-A-L/labe… 1 regressions found. CompilerTests.ClosureCompilerTest.testBlockNumberingForInjectInto

Oct. 16, 2013

introduce Morphic-Core package

by Pavel Krivanek

Hi, I created a slice that moves the most basic Morphic classes to the new package named Morphic-Core. If we want to integrate it, it would be better to do it soon to make the slice merging easier. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11901/introduce-Morphic-Core-package -- Pavel

Oct. 16, 2013

[regression reporter]regression occurred

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation-A-L/labe… 1 regressions found. CompilerTests.ClosureCompilerTest.testBlockNumberingForInjectInto

Oct. 16, 2013

[regression reporter]regression occurred

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2.1-Validation-A-L/labe… 1 regressions found. CompilerTests.ClosureCompilerTest.testBlockNumberingForInjectInto

Oct. 16, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Goubier Thierry

Interesting display, Sven. My take on that: * Aesthetics: the system has two fonts, not one. -1 if I review a document with more than one font. * Coherence / uniformity: A class name, a method selector has a different shape in the GUI (proportional) than in the code (monospaced). Are they different objects? Can I recognize my class name in the code without reading it? Regards, Thierry Le 15/10/2013 21:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe a Ã©crit : > OK, so with Pavel's code I got my 3.0 image capable of showing the new > fonts. Since I do respect those arguing in favour, I will give it a try > - but I am still not sure why it had to change in the first place. > > I think the progression from Small to Medium is skipping at least one > step (10 -> 13), here is my setup for now: > > > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 18:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu > <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote: > >> >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com >> <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif >>> fonts for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source >>> Code fonts for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people >>> like the look of them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent >>> reactions :). >>> >>> @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in >>> CC the whole time :). >> >> OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and >> feel and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was >> about using a monospaced font. >> >> I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-) >> >> For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the >> change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a >> difference, there is still the question why we have to change. >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu >>> <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote: >>> >>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu >>>> <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> except that it is not accurate :) >>>>>> >>>>>> - with a monospace you can have bolds and italic without problems >>>>>> (it is a decent one)... and you also can play with sizes (for >>>>>> example, for comments) >>>>>> - when you copy&paste you will lose part of your formatting no >>>>>> matter if you have a fixed font or a proportional one (is not >>>>>> true that you lose all of them... in fact I usually do not lose any) >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but there are no sensible arguments in favour of a >>>>> monospaced font. It is just not needed (in Smalltalk). Another way >>>>> to look at it is: 99.99 % of the world use proportional fonts. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I think whoever made this 'decision' knew it would be _very_ >>>>> hard to get this passed ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we should switch to C/Java/Javascript syntax so that we do >>>>> not scare newcomers ? Sorry, I could not resist. >>>> not taken. >>>> and non sense. >>>> idea is to welcome newcomers, not to became another language. >>>> Now... if font is *part* of the language, we could be talking about >>>> the same. But since it is not, then we are comparing apples with >>>> tomatoes. >>>> >>>> I can say that no, 99% of the world do not use proportional fonts... >>>> every other programing environment uses monospaced fonts. >>>> yeah, I know "we are different"... but we still code. Ah, no, >>>> sorry... we "manipulate objects", but that looks really close to >>>> coding for me. >>>> >>>> and yes... I was expecting a lot of whining (even if it was not me >>>> *alone* who took the decision), but I was expecting from people at >>>> least wait to see the fonts before start the bashing ;) >>> >>> Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree. >>> And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was >>> made. >>> But I'll wait a bit for other comments. >>> >>>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu >>>>>> <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Excellent arguments ! >>>>>>> I am with you 100% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:siguctua@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since the days when editors was able to allow me using any >>>>>>>> fonts, i was always switching to variable-spaced font >>>>>>>> for code pane. And i am not speaking about smalltalk or pharo >>>>>>>> here, it was C and Pascal those days :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> guess, what i would prefer in pharo? :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The bad things about getting used to monospaced fonts is that >>>>>>>> you format code and it looks perfect, >>>>>>>> but then you print it or copy/paste it somewhere else where it >>>>>>>> uses other font, and all your beautiful formatting are gone. >>>>>>>> Needless to say, that printing press was invented way before >>>>>>>> first computer or digital printer, and all we know about fonts came >>>>>>>> to us from the printing world.. and i think i would be right >>>>>>>> saying that before first digital printers there was not such >>>>>>>> thing as monospaced >>>>>>>> fonts, because it is not economically efficient: you don't want >>>>>>>> to waste space on front page of your newspaper by aligning >>>>>>>> glyphs to some virtual grid. >>>>>>>> More than that, it works well only if you using same font size >>>>>>>> and no bold/underline variants whatever.. as soon as you use >>>>>>>> variants or different font size, >>>>>>>> all the benefits of 'formatting' using monospaced font is gone. >>>>>>>> That means, if we employ monospaced font for code, we will be >>>>>>>> forced to not use bold/italic variants, or different font size >>>>>>>> (for instance, >>>>>>>> i would be like to play with code highlight scheme, where >>>>>>>> comments using different font size, or where method name uses >>>>>>>> bigger font size etc). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des SystÃ¨mes Temps RÃ©el EmbarquÃ©s 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

Oct. 16, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Igor Stasenko

it is obvious that i don't like it. :) my eyes is sunk through the holes (the extra space between letters), which makes reading lot more harder. In writing, the white space was invented and used for separating words, not the letters belonging to same word. Now, it is me. Others may find it easier to read. What i certainly agree with is that we need a good readable font for code. On 15 October 2013 21:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > OK, so with Pavel's code I got my 3.0 image capable of showing the new > fonts. Since I do respect those arguing in favour, I will give it a try - > but I am still not sure why it had to change in the first place. > > I think the progression from Small to Medium is skipping at least one step > (10 -> 13), here is my setup for now: > > > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 18:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif fonts > for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source Code fonts > for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people like the look of > them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent reactions :). > > @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in CC the > whole time :). > > > OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and feel > and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was about using > a monospaced font. > > I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-) > > For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the > change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a difference, > there is still the question why we have to change. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > except that it is not accurate :) > > - with a monospace you can have bolds and italic without problems (it is a > decent one)... and you also can play with sizes (for example, for comments) > - when you copy&paste you will lose part of your formatting no matter if > you have a fixed font or a proportional one (is not true that you lose all > of them... in fact I usually do not lose any) > > > Sorry, but there are no sensible arguments in favour of a monospaced font. > It is just not needed (in Smalltalk). Another way to look at it is: 99.99 % > of the world use proportional fonts. > > BTW, I think whoever made this 'decision' knew it would be _very_ hard to > get this passed ;-) > > Maybe we should switch to C/Java/Javascript syntax so that we do not scare > newcomers ? Sorry, I could not resist. > > not taken. > and non sense. > idea is to welcome newcomers, not to became another language. > Now... if font is *part* of the language, we could be talking about the > same. But since it is not, then we are comparing apples with tomatoes. > > I can say that no, 99% of the world do not use proportional fonts... every > other programing environment uses monospaced fonts. > yeah, I know "we are different"... but we still code. Ah, no, sorry... we > "manipulate objects", but that looks really close to coding for me. > > and yes... I was expecting a lot of whining (even if it was not me *alone* > who took the decision), but I was expecting from people at least wait to > see the fonts before start the bashing ;) > > > Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree. > And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was made. > But I'll wait a bit for other comments. > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > Excellent arguments ! > I am with you 100% > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Since the days when editors was able to allow me using any fonts, i was > always switching to variable-spaced font > for code pane. And i am not speaking about smalltalk or pharo here, it was > C and Pascal those days :) > > guess, what i would prefer in pharo? :) > > The bad things about getting used to monospaced fonts is that you format > code and it looks perfect, > but then you print it or copy/paste it somewhere else where it uses other > font, and all your beautiful formatting are gone. > Needless to say, that printing press was invented way before first > computer or digital printer, and all we know about fonts came > to us from the printing world.. and i think i would be right saying that > before first digital printers there was not such thing as monospaced > fonts, because it is not economically efficient: you don't want to waste > space on front page of your newspaper by aligning glyphs to some virtual > grid. > More than that, it works well only if you using same font size and no > bold/underline variants whatever.. as soon as you use variants or different > font size, > all the benefits of 'formatting' using monospaced font is gone. > That means, if we employ monospaced font for code, we will be forced to > not use bold/italic variants, or different font size (for instance, > i would be like to play with code highlight scheme, where comments using > different font size, or where method name uses bigger font size etc). > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Oct. 16, 2013