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

Nautilus no longer guards against changed methods

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

I think this has been reported before, but in #30591 Nautilus no longer guards against changed methods. - Open Nautilus, select some method in some class - Change the methodâs source code, orange in top right corner - Click any other method, category, class or package - Pending change is lost This is pretty importart, I lost some changes already. Sven

Nov. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Patches for Pharo packages you are maintaining

by Esteban Lorenzano

Truth is that we can do better than others because we can serialize the stack and rebuild it in another place, making the reproduction of the error a triviality. In my infinite TODO list I have: add a "submit bug" button to debugger window. Only think that has prevented me to implement it is lack of time... If someone wants to take this task (not so hard, all the parts needed are already there), it would be a cool contribution to community. Esteban On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Lorenz KÃ¶hl <lorenz(a)quub.de> wrote: > >>> So registering on Pharo tracker *never* worked for me, since I try, > >>> before the summer. > >> In the end I think is was a mistake to use fogbugz. For sure itâs nice > for companies, but > >> for open sourse projects it just does not work with a closed bug > tracker. > >> > >> Now the question is what is the effort to move to yet another one? > > I do not like fogbugz but I would not change now. > > Let us > > - make it easy for people to log > > The Racket programming language (racket-lang.org) has in its IDE DrRacket > a menu item > - Submit bug report > > Details about the system and a description of the bug is gathered and sent > of to a bugs mailing list as well as creating an issue in a bug tracker. > This way you get the issue number, a possible discussion thread about the > bug/enhancement and any user can take part. IMHO this is the _right_ way to > do it. > > Is there something similar for pharo? > > Contributing changes this way might get more complicated though, but > possible. >

Nov. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Patches for Pharo packages you are maintaining

by Esteban Lorenzano

I like the monkey... but I really don't care if is there or not. Now... I think there are some real bugs in the bug tracker (like not updating the list). I do not like fogbugz, I find it heavy, hard to use and a real pain in my ***, but I also think that "you do not change horses in the middle of the race" :) Esteban On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:38 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>wrote: > killing ugly monkey picture: +1000! (a reason why I don't go there BTW, it > scares me). > > Phil > > > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < > stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> >>> >> >> >> >> So registering on Pharo tracker *never* worked for me, since I try, >> >> before the summer. >> >> >> > >> > In the end I think is was a mistake to use fogbugz. For sure itâs nice >> for companies, but >> > for open sourse projects it just does not work with a closed bug >> tracker. >> > >> > Now the question is what is the effort to move to yet another one? >> >> I do not like fogbugz but I would not change now. >> Let us >> - make it easy for people to log >> - remove this ugly monkey pictures (I do not like it - do you >> think that people can understand anything with it. >> - get a newer version of smalltalkhub >> and continue. >> >> Stef >> >> >> >

Nov. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slot class builder: Anonymous class modification

by phil＠highoctane.be

Indeed. Same for listeners etc. Anonymous class has indeed a very clear meaning to me and to any student that has been exposed to Java (which means "a huge lot"). Phil On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com>wrote: > 2013/11/23 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > > On 23 November 2013 21:26, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> > >> >> imo, a better term to use for it would be 'private class' , because > >> >> anonymous is a bit fuzzy. > > >> > I disagree. Anonymous classes is the term that has been used for over > >> > two decades. It means, literally, a class that has no name because > it is > >> > not in Smalltalk (or in a top-level environment if the dialect has > >> > namespaces). This is not at all fuzzy. Private class means > something quite > >> > different, a class that is private to some environment, e.g. a class > nested > >onyl> > within another class as occurs in SmalltalkAgents or Newspeak. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Anonymous = without name. > >> There's not much to add to it. > > > That's the point. Now what is practical implications of it? > > Think, how far you can go with anonymous versus private class. > > > > If you deny anonymous classes from being private, > > then you'll immediately hit many problems with tools, > > which working with public classes and expecting them to have a name. > > And i don't have to go deep to point on problems: just imagine that you > did > > a change to such 'anonymous' class, now since it is public, all tools is > > notified about this change, including change logger.. and my question, > what > > you going to log into .changes file in such case? > > I can see your point. But then just say that "Anonymous classes are > private". > Just don't change the name. Anonymous classes are a well know concept > used through piles of literature. > E.g. In Java the compiler creates anonymous classes everytime you > directly instantiate an Interface. > > ej myObject.schedule(new Runnable {...}); > > Regards, > >

Nov. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slot class builder: Anonymous class modification

by Igor Stasenko

On 24 November 2013 01:20, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com>wrote: > 2013/11/23 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > > On 23 November 2013 21:26, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> > >> >> imo, a better term to use for it would be 'private class' , because > >> >> anonymous is a bit fuzzy. > > >> > I disagree. Anonymous classes is the term that has been used for over > >> > two decades. It means, literally, a class that has no name because > it is > >> > not in Smalltalk (or in a top-level environment if the dialect has > >> > namespaces). This is not at all fuzzy. Private class means > something quite > >> > different, a class that is private to some environment, e.g. a class > nested > >> > within another class as occurs in SmalltalkAgents or Newspeak. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Anonymous = without name. > >> There's not much to add to it. > > > That's the point. Now what is practical implications of it? > > Think, how far you can go with anonymous versus private class. > > > > If you deny anonymous classes from being private, > > then you'll immediately hit many problems with tools, > > which working with public classes and expecting them to have a name. > > And i don't have to go deep to point on problems: just imagine that you > did > > a change to such 'anonymous' class, now since it is public, all tools is > > notified about this change, including change logger.. and my question, > what > > you going to log into .changes file in such case? > > I can see your point. But then just say that "Anonymous classes are > private". > Just don't change the name. Anonymous classes are a well know concept > used through piles of literature. > I am not after changing names here (for naming sake), but more for labeling things properly conceptually. Because "anonymous" carries little or no implications regarding tools or environment, while "private" makes things much more clear. This is why i think it is less fuzzy. > E.g. In Java the compiler creates anonymous classes everytime you > directly instantiate an Interface. > > ej myObject.schedule(new Runnable {...}); > > Regards, > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Nov. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slot class builder: Anonymous class modification

by Esteban A. Maringolo

2013/11/23 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > On 23 November 2013 21:26, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> >> >> imo, a better term to use for it would be 'private class' , because >> >> anonymous is a bit fuzzy. >> > I disagree. Anonymous classes is the term that has been used for over >> > two decades. It means, literally, a class that has no name because it is >> > not in Smalltalk (or in a top-level environment if the dialect has >> > namespaces). This is not at all fuzzy. Private class means something quite >> > different, a class that is private to some environment, e.g. a class nested >> > within another class as occurs in SmalltalkAgents or Newspeak. >> >> +1 >> >> Anonymous = without name. >> There's not much to add to it. > That's the point. Now what is practical implications of it? > Think, how far you can go with anonymous versus private class. > > If you deny anonymous classes from being private, > then you'll immediately hit many problems with tools, > which working with public classes and expecting them to have a name. > And i don't have to go deep to point on problems: just imagine that you did > a change to such 'anonymous' class, now since it is public, all tools is > notified about this change, including change logger.. and my question, what > you going to log into .changes file in such case? I can see your point. But then just say that "Anonymous classes are private". Just don't change the name. Anonymous classes are a well know concept used through piles of literature. E.g. In Java the compiler creates anonymous classes everytime you directly instantiate an Interface. ej myObject.schedule(new Runnable {...}); Regards,

Nov. 24, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slot class builder: Anonymous class modification

by Igor Stasenko

On 23 November 2013 21:26, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com>wrote: > 2013/11/23 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> imo, a better term to use for it would be 'private class' , because > anonymous is a bit fuzzy. > > > > > > I disagree. Anonymous classes is the term that has been used for over > two decades. It means, literally, a class that has no name because it is > not in Smalltalk (or in a top-level environment if the dialect has > namespaces). This is not at all fuzzy. Private class means something > quite different, a class that is private to some environment, e.g. a class > nested within another class as occurs in SmalltalkAgents or Newspeak. > > +1 > > Anonymous = without name. > There's not much to add to it. > > That's the point. Now what is practical implications of it? Think, how far you can go with anonymous versus private class. If you deny anonymous classes from being private, then you'll immediately hit many problems with tools, which working with public classes and expecting them to have a name. And i don't have to go deep to point on problems: just imagine that you did a change to such 'anonymous' class, now since it is public, all tools is notified about this change, including change logger.. and my question, what you going to log into .changes file in such case? > Regards, > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Nov. 23, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slot class builder: Anonymous class modification

by Igor Stasenko

On 23 November 2013 18:01, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 22 November 2013 16:25, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 22 November 2013 16:04, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> With Esteban, we bumped into a problem with anonymous subclasses and >>>> the slot class builder. >>>> The problem is that once an anonymous class is created is not possible >>>> to modify it. >>>> Here is the problem: >>>> For creating an anonymous class with the new class builder API you do >>>> something like: >>>> >>>> myAnonymousClass := AnonymousClassInstaller make: [ :classBuilder | >>>> classBuilder >>>> superclass: Object; >>>> name: #MyAnonymousClass; >>>> .... ] >>>> >>>> What happens is that the class builder asks the class installer if the >>>> class named #MyAnonymousClass exists or not to know if this a class to be >>>> created or to be modified. >>>> Here, the strategy of the anonymous class installer is to always answer >>>> no. So ok, now you have you're anonymous class. >>>> But what happens when you do something like: >>>> >>>> myAnonymousClass addInstVarNamed: #newIV >>>> >>>> Since the class has no clue of what class installer was used to create >>>> it, it instantiate a new one, and a PharoClassInstaller ! >>>> This new class installer then says to the class builder that there is >>>> no class named MyAnonymousClass so it creates it! And it install it in the >>>> system dictionary! >>>> And myAnonymousClass is not modified. >>>> >>>> So there is several problem here: >>>> - a class doesn't know which class installer was used to create it >>>> - even if the class would know that, the anonymous class installer >>>> would always say that it doesn't know it and a new class would be created >>>> >>>> So one possible solution for that is to have one class installer per >>>> environment (so add one iv in SystemDictionary right now), like that a >>>> class would know what class installer was used to create it. >>>> What would happen then is that you don't create anonymous classes >>>> anymore, that is to say a class not installed in any environment, but >>>> instead you create a class that exist in an environment separated from the >>>> system dictionary. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> >>>> i think that this expression: >>> >>> myAnonymousClass addInstVarNamed: #newIV >>> >>> should create and answer new original class. >>> And don't take me wrong a 'new class' means just a new class object, >>> which is not installed/registered anywhere, because it is done at next step >>> (if its necessary). >>> >>> I'm not sure what this 'class installer' thingy comes from and it looks >>> completely irrelevant. We must have clear separation between operations >>> which creating new classes >>> and installing/registering them inside environment. >>> Because anonymous class is not one which has no name, it is one which is >>> not registered in any public place. For the rest , it should behave in same >>> way as public one. >>> >>> The fact that IDE tries to hide it and simulate as if you modified >>> existing class is not really important here, because it is higher-level >>> contracts and responsibilities. >>> >>> >> imo, a better term to use for it would be 'private class' , because >> anonymous is a bit fuzzy. >> > > I disagree. Anonymous classes is the term that has been used for over two > decades. It means, literally, a class that has no name because it is not > in Smalltalk (or in a top-level environment if the dialect has namespaces). > This is not at all fuzzy. Private class means something quite different, > a class that is private to some environment, e.g. a class nested within > another class as occurs in SmalltalkAgents or Newspeak. > > Don't you see, that once you saying that anonymous class is one which not installed in environment, you turning it into private to that environment, isn't? Because at the end private means 'not accessible' publicly, and this is exactly what we have. Nested classes is a bit different is just extra scoping, which not necessary makes things private, it just adds a level of indirection but you still can access it via environment through the chain of parent scope(s).

Nov. 23, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Patches for Pharo packages you are maintaining

by phil＠highoctane.be

killing ugly monkey picture: +1000! (a reason why I don't go there BTW, it scares me). Phil On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >>> > >> > >> So registering on Pharo tracker *never* worked for me, since I try, > >> before the summer. > >> > > > > In the end I think is was a mistake to use fogbugz. For sure itâs nice > for companies, but > > for open sourse projects it just does not work with a closed bug tracker. > > > > Now the question is what is the effort to move to yet another one? > > I do not like fogbugz but I would not change now. > Let us > - make it easy for people to log > - remove this ugly monkey pictures (I do not like it - do you > think that people can understand anything with it. > - get a newer version of smalltalkhub > and continue. > > Stef > > >

Nov. 23, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Patches for Pharo packages you are maintaining

by phil＠highoctane.be

Is it so hard to register on STH and Fogbugz + give access to a Pharo inbox ? Nah, come on. At least, Fogbugz looks like a decent issue tracker and is easy to use. (And we should push more Wiki pages in there). Phil

Nov. 23, 2013