October 2014 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Screencast] Using ZnLogEvents and GT Tools to look at HTTP traffic behind Monticello

by phil＠highoctane.be

Nice! I'll try the Announcers thing on a Seaside session. How would you do that? I mean DynamicVariables in GT. âPhil

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Tests around Pharo

by mschepens

I finally managed the proxy problem by sending commits from my own web connection. So I put the issues to "Fix review needed". I had some problems while importing Collections-Tests (Native part, for the FloatArrayTest) but finally managed it too. I sent to Damien Cassou the "license agreements" filled and signed, I will give him my copy of this paper next wednesday. Hope our tests will be helpful and will increase test coverage of pharo, it was really interesting for us to work on this project, and we acquired significant knowledges (about smalltalk but about opensource projects too). We'll follow our commits evolution, and again thanks to all of you for the time you gave us ! -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Tests-around-Pharo-tp4777295p4784793.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] CompiledMethod>>hash can produce clashes

by Eliot Miranda

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Richard Sargent < richard.sargent(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > Eliot Miranda-2 wrote > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Richard Sargent < > > > richard.sargent@ > > >> wrote: > >> One of the best things about Smalltalk is how easily we can say what we > >> mean. I think you would be better off creating a method named something > >> like > >> #hasSameEffectAs: to answer what you are presently using #= to do, and > >> change #= to answer the, in my opinion, more sensible "is the same as" > >> that > >> we conventionally think of #= meaning. > >> > > > > But that's the point. #= has to mean something and having it mean #== > > isn't useful, so one has to choose some value-based semantic for > > CompiledMethod>>#= and the one that's there is useful. Defining what #= > > means for some value type is far easier than defining what it might mean > > for something as complex as a CompiledMethod. The definition in > > Squeak/Pharo has been useful to me in implementing a closure-based > system, > > so I'm unapologetic about the current definition. It is a good one but > it > > doesn't preclude defining others. > > An interesting response. You ignored the point that e.g. #hasSameEffectAs: > provides greater clarity and add an argument against something I didn't > say. > It's a given. But the selector still isn't perfectly informative, see below. And what's the effect? The effect when executed, so why not hasSameEffectWhenExecuted:? It's a mouthful. I also don't think defining equality for a CompiledMethod is particularly > difficult. If I were to recompile a method's source code, I would get a new > instance of a CompiledMethod that would, in my opinion, be equal to the one > already installed in the class (and perhaps cached in the VM's > optimizations). So one would be able to say that we would not replace an > existing CompiledMethod with an equal one. The current implementation of #= > has no such characteristic, since it proclaims a CompiledMethod named #a to > be equal to one named #z. > And for some uses that is correct, one names a /is/ equal to one named z, even though their selectors differ. For example if you do the following: aClass compile: 'a ^1'; compile: 'b ^ 1'. aClass compiledMethodAt: #a put: aClass >> #b then "aClass new a" still answers 1. It's only if one introspects (thisContext method selector, opens the debugger, etc) that one sees that the selector doesn't match. If you go back to Smalltalk-80 you'll see that compiled methods didn't store their selector and to find out their selector one searched the method dictionary of the method's method class. As far as what most methods do (excluding introspecting code) the selector is merely a cache of the key in the relevant method dictionary. So #hasSameEffect: *doesn't* mean what one might think it means for some uses (it doesn't only depend on the method in question, but on usage, whether the method is used in an introspective context, etc). So naming a more explanatory selector is more difficult than you might think. The blue book say #= means "Answer whether the receiver and the argument > represent the same component." The current implementation does so only for > some, in my opinion, counter-intuitive definition of "same component". > Well Smalltalk-80 says Answer true if the receiver and the argument represent the same object and false otherwise. If = is redefined in any subclass, consider also redefining the message hash. and that's just as vague (AFAIA the blue book doesn't define what a component is), because whether objects are equal or not depends on usage. In the end the system is full of definitions of #= which are more or less generally useful in various contexts. Things are easy for the arithmetic types, but for more complex objects there are always caveats | s1 s2 | s1 := Set new. s1 add: s1. s2 := Set new. s2 add: s2. s1 = s2 doesn't terminate. So should Set's #= be called isEqualIfNonRecursive: ? No. Its limited #= is fine in practice and much better than Smalltalk-80's original fall back to #==. But it is not a perfect equality. Neither is CompiledMethod's. But it being imperfect is not an argument for changing it to another, inevitably also flawed definition without good reason. -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/CompiledMethod-hash-can-produce-clashes-tp4784722p478… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > -- best, Eliot

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Screencast] Using ZnLogEvents and GT Tools to look at HTTP traffic behind Monticello

by Tudor Girba

Nice! :) Doru On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Using ZnLogEvents and GT Tools to look at HTTP traffic behind Monticello. > > I love it when a plan comes together. Many small usability changes were > added to GT Tools since they were included in Pharo 4. And a lot of small > custom inspector presentations were added. > > http://youtu.be/rIBbeMdFCys (be sure to select the 720p version) > > This short screencast shows how to use ZnLogEvents and GT Tools in Pharo 4 > to look at the HTTP traffic behing Monticello (more specifically, an > MCSmalltalkhubRepository). This demonstrates how simple custom inspectors > are combined to form a powerful tool - and how easy it is to learn about > what is going on inside Pharo. > > Sven > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] CompiledMethod>>hash can produce clashes

by Richard Sargent

Eliot Miranda-2 wrote > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Richard Sargent < > richard.sargent@ >> wrote: >> One of the best things about Smalltalk is how easily we can say what we >> mean. I think you would be better off creating a method named something >> like >> #hasSameEffectAs: to answer what you are presently using #= to do, and >> change #= to answer the, in my opinion, more sensible "is the same as" >> that >> we conventionally think of #= meaning. >> > > But that's the point. #= has to mean something and having it mean #== > isn't useful, so one has to choose some value-based semantic for > CompiledMethod>>#= and the one that's there is useful. Defining what #= > means for some value type is far easier than defining what it might mean > for something as complex as a CompiledMethod. The definition in > Squeak/Pharo has been useful to me in implementing a closure-based system, > so I'm unapologetic about the current definition. It is a good one but it > doesn't preclude defining others. An interesting response. You ignored the point that e.g. #hasSameEffectAs: provides greater clarity and add an argument against something I didn't say. I also don't think defining equality for a CompiledMethod is particularly difficult. If I were to recompile a method's source code, I would get a new instance of a CompiledMethod that would, in my opinion, be equal to the one already installed in the class (and perhaps cached in the VM's optimizations). So one would be able to say that we would not replace an existing CompiledMethod with an equal one. The current implementation of #= has no such characteristic, since it proclaims a CompiledMethod named #a to be equal to one named #z. The blue book say #= means "Answer whether the receiver and the argument represent the same component." The current implementation does so only for some, in my opinion, counter-intuitive definition of "same component". -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/CompiledMethod-hash-can-produce-clashes-tp4784722p478… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] CompiledMethod>>hash can produce clashes

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Richard, On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Richard Sargent < richard.sargent(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > Eliot Miranda-2 wrote > > I responded... > > I have to disagree with your recommendation. You say that you intend #= to > mean "has the same effect as" rather than "is the same as". > > One of the best things about Smalltalk is how easily we can say what we > mean. I think you would be better off creating a method named something > like > #hasSameEffectAs: to answer what you are presently using #= to do, and > change #= to answer the, in my opinion, more sensible "is the same as" that > we conventionally think of #= meaning. > But that's the point. #= has to mean something and having it mean #== isn't useful, so one has to choose some value-based semantic for CompiledMethod>>#= and the one that's there is useful. Defining what #= means for some value type is far easier than defining what it might mean for something as complex as a CompiledMethod. The definition in Squeak/Pharo has been useful to me in implementing a closure-based system, so I'm unapologetic about the current definition. It is a good one but it doesn't preclude defining others. $0.02 worth and worth everything you paid for it. :-) > Richard > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/CompiledMethod-hash-can-produce-clashes-tp4784722p478… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > -- best, Eliot

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] CompiledMethod>>hash can produce clashes

by Richard Sargent

Eliot Miranda-2 wrote > I responded... I have to disagree with your recommendation. You say that you intend #= to mean "has the same effect as" rather than "is the same as". One of the best things about Smalltalk is how easily we can say what we mean. I think you would be better off creating a method named something like #hasSameEffectAs: to answer what you are presently using #= to do, and change #= to answer the, in my opinion, more sensible "is the same as" that we conventionally think of #= meaning. $0.02 worth and worth everything you paid for it. :-) Richard -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/CompiledMethod-hash-can-produce-clashes-tp4784722p478… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] CompiledMethod>>hash can produce clashes

by Eliot Miranda

I responded... On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We found an issue where CompiledMethods can produce the same hash event > within the same MethodDictionary. Reported here: > > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14246/CompiledMethod-hash-can-produce-cla… > > Cheers, > Max > -- best, Eliot

Oct. 15, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Context variables?

by Camille Teruel

Hi Jeff, I think you should look at DynamicVariable and ProcessSpecificVariable classes. The first one is a read-only while the second is writable. You have to subclass these class for each variable you want. Ex: DynamicVariable subclass: #MyVar. MyVar value: 4 during: [ MyVar value ] HTH, Camiile On 15 oct. 2014, at 17:09, J.F. Rick <self(a)je77.com> wrote: > I remember there was some discussion on the list about support for variables tied to the context rather than to the instance or class. This seems particularly useful for a web application where you might want to access the request and response from the context. What is the proper name for these kind of variables and where can I read about how to use them? > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > -- > Jochen "Jeff" Rick, Ph.D. > http://www.je77.com/ > Skype ID: jochenrick

Oct. 15, 2014

Context variables?

by J.F. Rick

I remember there was some discussion on the list about support for variables tied to the context rather than to the instance or class. This seems particularly useful for a web application where you might want to access the request and response from the context. What is the proper name for these kind of variables and where can I read about how to use them? Cheers, Jeff -- Jochen "Jeff" Rick, Ph.D. http://www.je77.com/ Skype ID: jochenrick

Oct. 15, 2014