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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Object >> #is:

by Igor Stasenko

On 25 June 2013 13:34, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That does not answer my problem. > 2 both is: #fraction (with 1 denominator) and is: #integer so how do you > implement? > or: [super is: #number] ? > i know you can give plenty of ideas how you would do it, like: #(foo bar baz) includes: yourQuery but i wouldn't recommend it :) Btw i find it really strange, why for Integer it answers true, but not for Floats i actually would expect that: 10e50 isFraction 0.5 isFraction should also answer true because the floating-point numbers, which we are using in computers, can be represented by a fraction. And only those, which cannot be represented by fraction (like Pi) should answer false. So, please, fix it, and then we will think how to better implement polymorphic check with single #is: method :) > > 2013/6/25 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> >> >> On 25 June 2013 12:47, Nicolas Cellier >> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > But in some cases, you will end up with an object that is more than one >> > thing: >> > - a Number >> > - an Integer >> > - a Fraction >> > For example 0 shall answer yes to these 3. >> > So ^foo == #specialName just does not work, or you end up with caseOf: >> > >> >> err, why? >> >> if you define it like: >> >> Number>>is: symbol >> ^ symbol == #number >> >> >> 0 is: #number => true >> 0.0 is: #number => true >> 0/1 is: #number => true >> ? >> >> It is actually up to implementor how to his own classes should process >> #is: message. >> The only invariant (which imo best one), that Object should always >> answer false to #is: message no matter what parameter you passed, to >> avoid any ambiguous cases and keep things simple and easy to remember. >> That means, that unless you override this method in own class, its >> instances will always answer false to #is: message. >> And when you override it, you are free to define it the way you like... >> >> MyClass>>is: foo >> ^ foo class == self class >> or >> MyClass>>is: foo >> ^ foo class name == self class name >> or >> >> MyClass>>is: foo >> ^ foo isKindOf: MyClass >> >> (no limits to imagination :) >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

June 25, 2013

[update 3.0] #30220

by Esteban Lorenzano

June 25, 2013

[regression reporter]regression occurred

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-2.0-Tests/./Run=run%201,VM=vm,label=win… 1 regressions found. Zinc.Zodiac.ZnHTTPSTests.testGForceInria

June 25, 2013

Jenkins build became unstable: Pharo-2.0-Tests Â» run 1,vm,win #253

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

See <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-2.0-Tests/./Run=run%201,VM=vm,label=win…>

June 25, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Object >> #is:

by Igor Stasenko

On 25 June 2013 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I really cannot believe that you can consider > > is: #string > > better programing than > > isString > > no matter the implementation, and no matter if you can still found senders of #string... string programming (or symbol programing) is just bad, bad, bad. > Is so bad that is axiomatic... I cannot even explain why... :) > you are highly subjective here. :) given two expressions: object isString and object is: #string to me they are equal in their beautiness or ugliness, if you like. > and that just because we do not like to have 20 methods (or whatever the number) isBlah in object? > > sorry, I completely disagree with the idea. > > now, I agree that some of the "is" methods should be removed, but that is a complete different discussion :) > right. but that was the proposal to remove them first (by replacing with #is:) and then gradually deal with them later (but already having cleaned Object protocol). > Esteban > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

June 25, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Object >> #is:

by Nicolas Cellier

That does not answer my problem. 2 both is: #fraction (with 1 denominator) and is: #integer so how do you implement? or: [super is: #number] ? 2013/6/25 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> > On 25 June 2013 12:47, Nicolas Cellier > <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > But in some cases, you will end up with an object that is more than one > > thing: > > - a Number > > - an Integer > > - a Fraction > > For example 0 shall answer yes to these 3. > > So ^foo == #specialName just does not work, or you end up with caseOf: > > > > err, why? > > if you define it like: > > Number>>is: symbol > ^ symbol == #number > > > 0 is: #number => true > 0.0 is: #number => true > 0/1 is: #number => true > ? > > It is actually up to implementor how to his own classes should process > #is: message. > The only invariant (which imo best one), that Object should always > answer false to #is: message no matter what parameter you passed, to > avoid any ambiguous cases and keep things simple and easy to remember. > That means, that unless you override this method in own class, its > instances will always answer false to #is: message. > And when you override it, you are free to define it the way you like... > > MyClass>>is: foo > ^ foo class == self class > or > MyClass>>is: foo > ^ foo class name == self class name > or > > MyClass>>is: foo > ^ foo isKindOf: MyClass > > (no limits to imagination :) > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >

June 25, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Object >> #is:

by Esteban Lorenzano

I really cannot believe that you can consider is: #string better programing than isString no matter the implementation, and no matter if you can still found senders of #string... string programming (or symbol programing) is just bad, bad, bad. Is so bad that is axiomatic... I cannot even explain why... :) and that just because we do not like to have 20 methods (or whatever the number) isBlah in object? sorry, I completely disagree with the idea. now, I agree that some of the "is" methods should be removed, but that is a complete different discussion :) Esteban On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June 2013 12:59, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 25 juin 2013, at 11:45, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> On 25 June 2013 11:09, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 25 juin 2013, at 10:28, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2013-06-24, at 18:55, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> >> >> >> the isBlah is not optimal now it is just there and we cannot rewrite >> >> everything. >> >> >> I still think that is: is a nice way to kill some of the isPlague in Object. >> >> >> >> I still don't see what you solve, and the idea to use symbols for #is: is >> >> also >> >> >> wrong, for me that's going back to string-based programming. >> >> >> >> well, that's basically my argument agains #is: >> >> IMO is also an important performance issue in many cases, because is >> >> replacing a simple send with a string comparison and that can provoke >> >> slowdowns in some places (no idea where, this is just theoretical :)... >> >> Of course, as "pharo designers" we should be careful on not overpopulate >> >> Object with isBlah methods... but sometimes they are needed :) >> >> >> >> +1. >> >> Indeed, sometimes they are needed. You can't replace every isXXX send with a >> >> new visitor or dispatching by adding more and more extension methods all >> >> over the place (including Object BTW). >> >> Yet a fair amount of these methods can be removed. >> >> I think that a lot of these methods exist only because people think that >> >> isKindOf:/isMemberOf: are always evil, and its not true. >> >> There is at least three cases were I don't feel guilty using >> >> isKindOf:/isMemberOf: : >> >> - In unit tests >> >> - In #= methods >> >> - When I really want to ensure that an object is an instance of a specific >> >> class (see MethodContext>>#privRefreshWith: for example). This poor's man >> >> type checking can be replace with typed slots (that end up using >> >> isKindOf/isMemberOf: anyway). >> >> If we agree on that we can remove many #isXXX methods. >> >> Then there is some #isXXX methods that do not belong to Object (ex: >> >> #isTransferable belongs to Morph) and others that can be removed just by >> >> refactoring senders. >> >> We can also move some of them to extension methods, that doesn't solve the >> >> problem but it's a better packaging. >> >> Anyway I don't want to rely on #is: method because it conflates a lot of >> >> selectors into one. >> >> >> yes. it is. so what is the problem? >> >> >> The problem is that this #is: method is like aspirin: it makes the symptom >> disappear but it doesn't cure the disease (if there is one). >> > > Why? It was proposed how to deal with too many isXXXX methods in Object class. > It is orthogonal to whether you should use isXXX pattern or not. > Because each case should be dealt separately (and that's where you > free to override #is: method > to serve your special purpose). > >> Are you sure you understand the purpose of #is: method? >> >> >> No I didn't, but now that you revealed me the true purpose of #is:, I >> finally reached enlightenment. >> But apparently it's not the case of its own comment. >> > Despite the method's comment contains my name, it is not under my authorship. > Look for mailing list archives to see what i proposed then, and if it > different to what i saying now. > >> "A means for cleanly replacing all isXXX like methods. >> Please use judiciously! >> Suggested by Igor Stasenko at >> >> all isXXX should be converted following the pattern >> ColorForm>>isColorForm >> ^ true >> Object>>isColorForm >> ^ false >> is: aSymbol >> ^ aSymbol = #ColorForm or: [ super is: aSymbol ]" >> >> its purpose is for cases when you realy realy very very badly want to >> add own isPlague to >> Object protocol. In that case, you should use 'is: #plague' >> because no new isXXXX methods should be added anymore. >> The feast is over, and you should use #is: method. (or think how to >> not use isXXX pattern at all). >> >> >> TL;DR: I agree with Camillo :) >> >> >> >> anyway, this topic has been discussed with enough hot air so far and no >> >> progress, >> >> >> which means it is absolutely not important. there are more urgent things to >> >> done... >> > > i could not care less.. Back in 2009 i just proposed this. > Pharo people seems liked the idea and added this method into the image. > That's how my name appeared there. > And what i trying to (again as in 2009) articulate here, is how i see > to use this method. > But NOT whether it should stay in image or to be gone. > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

June 25, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Object >> #is:

by Igor Stasenko

On 25 June 2013 12:59, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 25 juin 2013, at 11:45, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > On 25 June 2013 11:09, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 25 juin 2013, at 10:28, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2013-06-24, at 18:55, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > > the isBlah is not optimal now it is just there and we cannot rewrite > > everything. > > > I still think that is: is a nice way to kill some of the isPlague in Object. > > > > I still don't see what you solve, and the idea to use symbols for #is: is > > also > > > wrong, for me that's going back to string-based programming. > > > > well, that's basically my argument agains #is: > > IMO is also an important performance issue in many cases, because is > > replacing a simple send with a string comparison and that can provoke > > slowdowns in some places (no idea where, this is just theoretical :)... > > Of course, as "pharo designers" we should be careful on not overpopulate > > Object with isBlah methods... but sometimes they are needed :) > > > > +1. > > Indeed, sometimes they are needed. You can't replace every isXXX send with a > > new visitor or dispatching by adding more and more extension methods all > > over the place (including Object BTW). > > Yet a fair amount of these methods can be removed. > > I think that a lot of these methods exist only because people think that > > isKindOf:/isMemberOf: are always evil, and its not true. > > There is at least three cases were I don't feel guilty using > > isKindOf:/isMemberOf: : > > - In unit tests > > - In #= methods > > - When I really want to ensure that an object is an instance of a specific > > class (see MethodContext>>#privRefreshWith: for example). This poor's man > > type checking can be replace with typed slots (that end up using > > isKindOf/isMemberOf: anyway). > > If we agree on that we can remove many #isXXX methods. > > Then there is some #isXXX methods that do not belong to Object (ex: > > #isTransferable belongs to Morph) and others that can be removed just by > > refactoring senders. > > We can also move some of them to extension methods, that doesn't solve the > > problem but it's a better packaging. > > Anyway I don't want to rely on #is: method because it conflates a lot of > > selectors into one. > > > yes. it is. so what is the problem? > > > The problem is that this #is: method is like aspirin: it makes the symptom > disappear but it doesn't cure the disease (if there is one). > Why? It was proposed how to deal with too many isXXXX methods in Object class. It is orthogonal to whether you should use isXXX pattern or not. Because each case should be dealt separately (and that's where you free to override #is: method to serve your special purpose). > Are you sure you understand the purpose of #is: method? > > > No I didn't, but now that you revealed me the true purpose of #is:, I > finally reached enlightenment. > But apparently it's not the case of its own comment. > Despite the method's comment contains my name, it is not under my authorship. Look for mailing list archives to see what i proposed then, and if it different to what i saying now. > "A means for cleanly replacing all isXXX like methods. > Please use judiciously! > Suggested by Igor Stasenko at > > all isXXX should be converted following the pattern > ColorForm>>isColorForm > ^ true > Object>>isColorForm > ^ false > is: aSymbol > ^ aSymbol = #ColorForm or: [ super is: aSymbol ]" > > its purpose is for cases when you realy realy very very badly want to > add own isPlague to > Object protocol. In that case, you should use 'is: #plague' > because no new isXXXX methods should be added anymore. > The feast is over, and you should use #is: method. (or think how to > not use isXXX pattern at all). > > > TL;DR: I agree with Camillo :) > > > > anyway, this topic has been discussed with enough hot air so far and no > > progress, > > > which means it is absolutely not important. there are more urgent things to > > done... > i could not care less.. Back in 2009 i just proposed this. Pharo people seems liked the idea and added this method into the image. That's how my name appeared there. And what i trying to (again as in 2009) articulate here, is how i see to use this method. But NOT whether it should stay in image or to be gone. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

June 25, 2013

[update 3.0] #30219

by Esteban Lorenzano

30219 ----- 10735 Cleaning ImageMorph API use form: for ImageMorph new form: ... and not image because image does not convey what is expected. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?10735 Diff information: http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Spec-Widgets-EstebanLorenzano… http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Polymorph-Widgets-EstebanLore… http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/NautilusCommon-EstebanLorenza… http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Nautilus-EstebanLorenzano.480… http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Morphic-Base-EstebanLorenzano… http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Growl-EstebanLorenzano.19.diff

June 25, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Object >> #is:

by Camille Teruel

On 25 juin 2013, at 11:45, Igor Stasenko wrote: > On 25 June 2013 11:09, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 25 juin 2013, at 10:28, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 2013-06-24, at 18:55, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> >> >> the isBlah is not optimal now it is just there and we cannot rewrite >> everything. >> >> I still think that is: is a nice way to kill some of the isPlague in Object. >> >> >> I still don't see what you solve, and the idea to use symbols for #is: is >> also >> >> wrong, for me that's going back to string-based programming. >> >> >> well, that's basically my argument agains #is: >> IMO is also an important performance issue in many cases, because is >> replacing a simple send with a string comparison and that can provoke >> slowdowns in some places (no idea where, this is just theoretical :)... >> Of course, as "pharo designers" we should be careful on not overpopulate >> Object with isBlah methods... but sometimes they are needed :) >> >> >> +1. >> Indeed, sometimes they are needed. You can't replace every isXXX send with a >> new visitor or dispatching by adding more and more extension methods all >> over the place (including Object BTW). >> Yet a fair amount of these methods can be removed. >> I think that a lot of these methods exist only because people think that >> isKindOf:/isMemberOf: are always evil, and its not true. >> There is at least three cases were I don't feel guilty using >> isKindOf:/isMemberOf: : >> - In unit tests >> - In #= methods >> - When I really want to ensure that an object is an instance of a specific >> class (see MethodContext>>#privRefreshWith: for example). This poor's man >> type checking can be replace with typed slots (that end up using >> isKindOf/isMemberOf: anyway). >> If we agree on that we can remove many #isXXX methods. >> Then there is some #isXXX methods that do not belong to Object (ex: >> #isTransferable belongs to Morph) and others that can be removed just by >> refactoring senders. >> We can also move some of them to extension methods, that doesn't solve the >> problem but it's a better packaging. >> Anyway I don't want to rely on #is: method because it conflates a lot of >> selectors into one. >> > yes. it is. so what is the problem? The problem is that this #is: method is like aspirin: it makes the symptom disappear but it doesn't cure the disease (if there is one). > Are you sure you understand the purpose of #is: method? No I didn't, but now that you revealed me the true purpose of #is:, I finally reached enlightenment. But apparently it's not the case of its own comment. "A means for cleanly replacing all isXXX like methods. Please use judiciously! Suggested by Igor Stasenko at http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-June/136793.html. all isXXX should be converted following the pattern ColorForm>>isColorForm ^ true Object>>isColorForm ^ false is: aSymbol ^ aSymbol = #ColorForm or: [ super is: aSymbol ]" > its purpose is for cases when you realy realy very very badly want to > add own isPlague to > Object protocol. In that case, you should use 'is: #plague' > because no new isXXXX methods should be added anymore. > The feast is over, and you should use #is: method. (or think how to > not use isXXX pattern at all). > >> >> TL;DR: I agree with Camillo :) >> >> >> anyway, this topic has been discussed with enough hot air so far and no >> progress, >> >> which means it is absolutely not important. there are more urgent things to >> done... >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

June 25, 2013