April 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Existing <script> <example> pragmas and new GT needs

by Tudor Girba

Hi, On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > > 2015-04-09 11:36 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: >> >>> 2015-04-09 8:48 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>> >>>> I would not do that. I think that removing the example pragma check is >>>> sufficient for now. Could we do it? >>>> >>> >>> Sufficient for what? >>> >> >> You said to add the extra check saying " *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or >> <gtExample>) pragma " >> and I said that it is sufficient to just remove the pragma check for the >> Pharo 4 release :). >> > > No, I don't think this is enough. There are so many #exampleXXX method > from GT in the Pharo4 image > and most of them don't work with nautilus play-icon for #exampleXXX methods > They don't do anything harmful either. But, you can also add the check as you suggest. > > >> >> >>> I think there is no problem if we remove the pragma check. Because only >>> very few (if any) >>> example methods (those that really open an example) relies only on the >>> pragma, without having a #exampleXXX name too. >>> >> >> Exactly. >> >> >>> I just think this would not change much. >>> We need to clean up the mess with the #example* methods. >>> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Can you produce the issue and slice? >> > > For what, removing the example check or renaming all #example* methods > that don't open an example? > For removing the example check. Cheers, Doru > > >> >> @Torsten: are you fine with this? >> >> Doru >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Doru >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-04-08 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And, to have a better chance of having a clean slate discussion later >>>>>> on in which to consider the value we associate to names, I would like to >>>>>> remove the <example> check from isExampleMethod and continue to preserve >>>>>> the treatment of #example* selectors in Nautilus. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't we need to change the check to: >>>>> >>>>> isExampleMethod >>>>> if selector starts with 'example' *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or >>>>> <gtExample>) pragma >>>>> >>>>> because there are tons of #example* methods, some of them open an >>>>> example and some of them with the pragma, create an instance for the >>>>> inspector? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>> >>>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

April 9, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Existing <script> <example> pragmas and new GT needs

by Nicolai Hess

2015-04-09 11:36 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > >> 2015-04-09 8:48 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >>> I would not do that. I think that removing the example pragma check is >>> sufficient for now. Could we do it? >>> >> >> Sufficient for what? >> > > You said to add the extra check saying " *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or > <gtExample>) pragma " > and I said that it is sufficient to just remove the pragma check for the > Pharo 4 release :). > No, I don't think this is enough. There are so many #exampleXXX method from GT in the Pharo4 image and most of them don't work with nautilus play-icon for #exampleXXX methods > > >> I think there is no problem if we remove the pragma check. Because only >> very few (if any) >> example methods (those that really open an example) relies only on the >> pragma, without having a #exampleXXX name too. >> > > Exactly. > > >> I just think this would not change much. >> We need to clean up the mess with the #example* methods. >> > > Thanks. > > Can you produce the issue and slice? > For what, removing the example check or renaming all #example* methods that don't open an example? > > @Torsten: are you fine with this? > > Doru > > >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-04-08 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, to have a better chance of having a clean slate discussion later >>>>> on in which to consider the value we associate to names, I would like to >>>>> remove the <example> check from isExampleMethod and continue to preserve >>>>> the treatment of #example* selectors in Nautilus. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Wouldn't we need to change the check to: >>>> >>>> isExampleMethod >>>> if selector starts with 'example' *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or >>>> <gtExample>) pragma >>>> >>>> because there are tons of #example* methods, some of them open an >>>> example and some of them with the pragma, create an instance for the >>>> inspector? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> >> >> > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >

April 9, 2015

almost ready to release except for two bugs

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Soâ¦ subject says all. We need to fix this two: - https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14606 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14606> - the NOT REPORTED IN TRACKER MC BUG! (What are you thinking guys? Report, report, REPORT!â¦ I failed the Jedi examenâ¦ without report the bug does not exist) and we are ready to go. Of course, we will try to fix between today and tomorrowâ¦ but even if we succeed, since âyou shall not go into production a fridayâ, release will be monday. cheers, Esteban

April 9, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Existing <script> <example> pragmas and new GT needs

by Denis Kudriashov

Hi. I read this long long thread. And too me #example is good common name for any kind of examples. I really don't want to think what pragma I should use for concrete scenario. All existed methods are just examples. No care is they return instances or not. So I am not understand what the problem with example methods which not return instance of class? And what concrete tool you try to implement? If it is special "examples" tab when inpecting/browsing classes why it should be restricted to working only with instances of given class? Your tool can analize result of example method and provide different kind of interfaces. And with instance of selected class it will work as you already implemented. And with example from Athens it can provide tools to control tiger demo (for example) Best regards, Denis 2015-04-09 9:48 GMT+03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > I would not do that. I think that removing the example pragma check is > sufficient for now. Could we do it? > > Cheers, > Doru > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-04-08 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >>> >>> And, to have a better chance of having a clean slate discussion later on >>> in which to consider the value we associate to names, I would like to >>> remove the <example> check from isExampleMethod and continue to preserve >>> the treatment of #example* selectors in Nautilus. >>> >>> >> Wouldn't we need to change the check to: >> >> isExampleMethod >> if selector starts with 'example' *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or >> <gtExample>) pragma >> >> because there are tons of #example* methods, some of them open an example >> and some of them with the pragma, create an instance for the inspector? >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >

April 9, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Existing <script> <example> pragmas and new GT needs

by Tudor Girba

Hi, On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > 2015-04-09 8:48 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > >> I would not do that. I think that removing the example pragma check is >> sufficient for now. Could we do it? >> > > Sufficient for what? > You said to add the extra check saying " *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or <gtExample>) pragma " and I said that it is sufficient to just remove the pragma check for the Pharo 4 release :). > I think there is no problem if we remove the pragma check. Because only > very few (if any) > example methods (those that really open an example) relies only on the > pragma, without having a #exampleXXX name too. > Exactly. > I just think this would not change much. > We need to clean up the mess with the #example* methods. > Thanks. Can you produce the issue and slice? @Torsten: are you fine with this? Doru > > > >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-08 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>> >>>> >>>> And, to have a better chance of having a clean slate discussion later >>>> on in which to consider the value we associate to names, I would like to >>>> remove the <example> check from isExampleMethod and continue to preserve >>>> the treatment of #example* selectors in Nautilus. >>>> >>>> >>> Wouldn't we need to change the check to: >>> >>> isExampleMethod >>> if selector starts with 'example' *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or >>> <gtExample>) pragma >>> >>> because there are tons of #example* methods, some of them open an >>> example and some of them with the pragma, create an instance for the >>> inspector? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

April 9, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Existing <script> <example> pragmas and new GT needs

by Nicolai Hess

2015-04-09 8:48 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > I would not do that. I think that removing the example pragma check is > sufficient for now. Could we do it? > Sufficient for what? I think there is no problem if we remove the pragma check. Because only very few (if any) example methods (those that really open an example) relies only on the pragma, without having a #exampleXXX name too. I just think this would not change much. We need to clean up the mess with the #example* methods. > > Cheers, > Doru > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-04-08 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >>> >>> And, to have a better chance of having a clean slate discussion later on >>> in which to consider the value we associate to names, I would like to >>> remove the <example> check from isExampleMethod and continue to preserve >>> the treatment of #example* selectors in Nautilus. >>> >>> >> Wouldn't we need to change the check to: >> >> isExampleMethod >> if selector starts with 'example' *AND HAS NOT* a <example> (or >> <gtExample>) pragma >> >> because there are tons of #example* methods, some of them open an example >> and some of them with the pragma, create an instance for the inspector? >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >

April 9, 2015

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/40598 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

April 9, 2015

[pharo-project/pharo-core] 677619: 40598

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/4.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 6776196256cbbd6fc17154eebde431e2915e9503 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/6776196256cbbd6fc17154ee… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2015-04-09 (Thu, 09 Apr 2015) Changed paths: R ScriptLoader40.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script597.st A ScriptLoader40.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script598.st R ScriptLoader40.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update40597.st A ScriptLoader40.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update40598.st M ScriptLoader40.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st A Slot.package/AbstractLayout.class/instance/api/definesSlot_.st A Slot.package/AbstractLayout.class/instance/api/hasSlotNamed_.st A Slot.package/AbstractLayout.class/instance/api/hasSlot_.st R Slot.package/PointerLayout.class/instance/api/definesSlot_.st R Slot.package/PointerLayout.class/instance/api/hasSlotNamed_.st R Slot.package/PointerLayout.class/instance/api/hasSlot_.st Log Message: ----------- 40598 15315 Inspecting Slots raises an error https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/15315 http://files.pharo.org/image/40/40598.zip

April 9, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Inspecting Slots raises an error

by Marcus Denker

> On 09 Apr 2015, at 10:12, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > >> On 09 Apr 2015, at 03:38, Juraj Kubelka <juraj.kubelka(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have tried to inspect >> Model allSlots >> and if I click on a slot it raises an error "WordLayout does not understand #definesSlot:â >> >> Is it problem of Slots or of GT-Inspector definition? > > a bug in Slotâ¦ #definesSlot: should be defines higher in the hierarchy. > > Fix: > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/15315/Inspecting-Slots-raises-an-error > In 40 #598 Marcus

April 9, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-business] French speaking Pharo company

by Esteban Lorenzano

notice too that the pharo consortium is also created to provide that level of thrust :) > On 09 Apr 2015, at 11:13, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > >> Am 09.04.2015 um 10:44 schrieb FranÃ§ois Stephany <tulipe.moutarde(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Hi there, >> >> I'm writing a proposal for a potential customer. Given the complex model, I'd like to implement the backend and webservice in Pharo (instead of Ruby on Rails). >> >> Is there any of you working in a service company doing Pharo Development for backends? The customer is french and might be more comfortable going with Pharo if he knows that there are backups in case we disappear. >> > We (2denker GmbH in cologne) are a service company that develops backends in pharo for years now. None of us speaks french. So if english is fine we are always interested. > > Norbert > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-business mailing list > Pharo-business(a)lists.pharo.org > http://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-business_lists.pharo.org

April 9, 2015