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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Sebastian Sastre

On Apr 17, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think this is right. Yesterday ClÃ©ment and I had lunch with Dan Ingalls and we talked about the origin of blocks. At first blocks were not even real objects; instead they were just a syntactic construct for delayed evaluation. Over time the original Smalltalk team found they needed more and more useful features, and they wanted everything to be objects so they introduced both the syntax for blocks and the class BlockContext, but they didn't look at other languages and so they didn't implement blocks as closures. > > So I think its more accurate to say > Over time Smalltalkers found blocks were /really/ useful. Later on they found out that they could implement blocks as closures, with the result that they were even more useful and much cleaner, leading to a more efficient virtual machine. > > But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. That historic connection is really important. I love to hear grey haired peopleâs advice :) Thanks a lot for sharing it here Eliot. > If it ain't broke don't fix it. +1 sebastian o/

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Alexandre, On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote: > Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented > blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out > that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer > closure. > I don't think this is right. Yesterday ClÃ©ment and I had lunch with Dan Ingalls and we talked about the origin of blocks. At first blocks were not even real objects; instead they were just a syntactic construct for delayed evaluation. Over time the original Smalltalk team found they needed more and more useful features, and they wanted everything to be objects so they introduced both the syntax for blocks and the class BlockContext, but they didn't look at other languages and so they didn't implement blocks as closures. So I think its more accurate to say Over time Smalltalkers found blocks were /really/ useful. Later on they found out that they could implement blocks as closures, with the result that they were even more useful and much cleaner, leading to a more efficient virtual machine. But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. > If it ain't broke don't fix it. The name BlockClosure isn't incorrect. These are blocks implemented as closures. The name MethodContext /is/ broken. These /aren't/ just MethodContexts any more, they are both BlockContexts and MethodContexts, so collapsing ContextPart and MethodContext together into just Context, and deleting the now unused BlockContext does make sense. [snip] > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is > doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of > some other languages? > > > > Uko > > > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > wrote: > > > >> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a > closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a > well-marketed move in my opinion. > >> > >> Alexandre > >> -- > >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre < > sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a > âblockâ. > >>> > >>> That might be actually a good idea > >>> > >>> sebastian > >>> > >>> o/ > >>> > >>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, > what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a > specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd > rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- best, Eliot

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] how to completely ignore mouse wheel events?

by Esteban Lorenzano

On 17 Apr 2014, at 18:13, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 17:02, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > >> I have modified the following methods >> HandMorph>>generateKeyboardEvent: evtBuf >> ScrollPane>>scrollByKeyboard: event >> >> The effect is now milder. >> >> Esteban, would it make sense to remove the event generation bu the VM? This works only for the old-style mouse with an actual wheel. Mighty mouse does not work at all with Pharo. > > no, that does not has sense. We need it. What we need is to improve the events we have, not to remove them. > Less than 0.1% of computer-using mankind uses mighty mouse. The rest uses regular mouses with old-fashion wheels (or trackpads, like myself). > So, removing is not a good idea. Not for VM, not for Pharo, and certainly not for Moose either. > Improve is the way to go :) > >> >> We have to get this right. Emulation of events is a bad idea. > > Yes! I agree and the way we are following is to remove emulation and transmit just raw events to the image (and let the image do the work of handling them). > Now it will take time, but we are going in that direction. ah, forget to say: I have a lot of expectation around Ronie's work on SDL2 and OSWindow interface. I provide as much support as I can. > > cheers, > Esteban > > ps: btwâ¦ scroll events also has problems in wheel-mouses, but those, Iâm not sure is a problem of VM or Pharoâ¦ I need to go deeper then (any insight would be cool) :) > >> >> Alexandre >> >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> On Apr 15, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Mouse wheel events are so poorly handled in Pharo, that they are not useful. >>> With Ronie we are seeing how we can better handle events with a window generated with SDL. But this is for the future. >>> >>> Is there a way to easily unable them? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] how to completely ignore mouse wheel events?

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, On 17 Apr 2014, at 17:02, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > I have modified the following methods > HandMorph>>generateKeyboardEvent: evtBuf > ScrollPane>>scrollByKeyboard: event > > The effect is now milder. > > Esteban, would it make sense to remove the event generation bu the VM? This works only for the old-style mouse with an actual wheel. Mighty mouse does not work at all with Pharo. no, that does not has sense. We need it. What we need is to improve the events we have, not to remove them. Less than 0.1% of computer-using mankind uses mighty mouse. The rest uses regular mouses with old-fashion wheels (or trackpads, like myself). So, removing is not a good idea. Not for VM, not for Pharo, and certainly not for Moose either. Improve is the way to go :) > > We have to get this right. Emulation of events is a bad idea. Yes! I agree and the way we are following is to remove emulation and transmit just raw events to the image (and let the image do the work of handling them). Now it will take time, but we are going in that direction. cheers, Esteban ps: btwâ¦ scroll events also has problems in wheel-mouses, but those, Iâm not sure is a problem of VM or Pharoâ¦ I need to go deeper then (any insight would be cool) :) > > Alexandre > > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Mouse wheel events are so poorly handled in Pharo, that they are not useful. >> With Ronie we are seeing how we can better handle events with a window generated with SDL. But this is for the future. >> >> Is there a way to easily unable them? >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Camille Teruel

On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:33, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > One thing that confuses me with these terminologies is that it's hard to know when someone speak about the syntactic construct (that you find in source code) or about the result of evaluating this construct (that close over an actual environment). > What I mean is that a block can be evaluated several times, and each time it gives a new block closure. > That's why I like the name BlockClosure: it make a difference between the block (that you find in source code) and the block closure (the object that represent the evaluation of a block). And I think that some languages make this distinction: they say lambda expression for the former and closure for the later > > > On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:21, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. >> >> But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. >> >> Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). >> >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? >>> >>> Uko >>> >>> On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >>>> >>>> Alexandre >>>> -- >>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>>>> >>>>> That might be actually a good idea >>>>> >>>>> sebastian >>>>> >>>>> o/ >>>>> >>>>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Sebastian Sastre

+1 sebastian o/ > On 17/04/2014, at 12:21, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > > Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. > > But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. > > Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >> Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? >> >> Uko >> >>> On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >>> >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>>> >>>> That might be actually a good idea >>>> >>>> sebastian >>>> >>>> o/ >>>> >>>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Camille Teruel

One thing that confuses me with these terminologies is that it's hard to know when someone speak about the syntactic construct (that you find in source code) or about the result of evaluating this construct (that close over an actual environment). What I mean is that a block can be evaluated several times, and each time it gives a new block closure. That's why I like the name BlockClosure: it make a difference between the block (that you find in source code) and the block closure (the object that represent the evaluation of a block). On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:21, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. > > But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. > > Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? >> >> Uko >> >> On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >>> >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>>> >>>> That might be actually a good idea >>>> >>>> sebastian >>>> >>>> o/ >>>> >>>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by ClÃ©ment Bera

2014-04-17 6:57 GMT-07:00 Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com>: > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > wrote: > > the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. > Calling a block what is actually a closure > > > javascript is teaching every day to thousands what a real Closure is every > day, so yeah that would be probably better > > > Javascript closures are different from Smalltalk BlockClosure, they do not support non local return. This extra feature allows smalltalk Closures to be upgraded from just Closure to BlockClosure to avoid any confusion with javascript closures (or people would think they are the same).

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Manfred KrÃ¶hnert

Hi, I just wanted to mention that Apple also added 'Closures' as 'Blocks' to Objective-C (respectively C): https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Prog… Best, Manfred On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is > doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of > some other languages? > > Uko > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > wrote: > > > Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a > closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a > well-marketed move in my opinion. > > > > Alexandre > > -- > > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre < > sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. > >> > >> That might be actually a good idea > >> > >> sebastian > >> > >> o/ > >> > >> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, > what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a > specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd > rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' > >> > >> > > > > > > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Alexandre Bergel

Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? > > Uko > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >> >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>> >>> That might be actually a good idea >>> >>> sebastian >>> >>> o/ >>> >>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >>> >>> >> >> > >

April 17, 2014