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

Re: [Pharo-dev] About nextPutAll: $(

by stepharo

Esteban I'm confused. I know << and I use it. Now << is different to what I mentioned. The point is not to replace nextPutAll: by << I'm not that stupid. The point is the surrounding behavior (opening and closing). Sven of course there are more than a name so this is why I thought about stream surround: aBlock between: '( ' and: ' )' With << it means that we will have all the surrounding logic in all the code. Stef

July 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] About nextPutAll: $(

by Nicolai Hess

2015-07-27 8:26 GMT+02:00 HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com>: > > 2015-07-26 15:49 GMT-03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> Well, If there wouldn't be already a way to do it, I wouldn't care which >> one to take. But this is not the case: we are discussing the introduction >> of a new vocabulary when there is already another who is fulfilling the >> place. >> In that sense, the proposed method solves a problem who is actually not >> there. >> If we do not like #<<, then we should remove it from system, but please, >> let's not add a more limited method when we have a more generic one who >> does the job... >> > > << is horrible, it reminds me to std::cout in C++ and all those cryptic > languages where you cannot write a line without checking the API reference > manual. > I like "<<" because it reminds me to std::cout in C++ :) > > HernÃ¡n > >

July 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] about should:raise: and should:raise:description

by Nicolai Hess

2015-07-27 8:21 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > > > > Am 27.07.2015 um 00:15 schrieb Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de>: > > > > from the usecase of > > > > self should:[some operation] raise: AnException description: ' a Text' > > > > I would expect that the test asserter would compare ' a Text' with the > > description of the exception raised. > > But it does not happen. > > All this test cases succeed, even if the description is different from > the > > actual exception message. > > Is this a bug or is the description text only used as a description > > for failing tests? > > description is only displayed if a test fails. It is just to give more > context to assertion that failed > > Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. > Norbert

July 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] About nextPutAll: $(

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

2015-07-26 15:49 GMT-03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Well, If there wouldn't be already a way to do it, I wouldn't care which > one to take. But this is not the case: we are discussing the introduction > of a new vocabulary when there is already another who is fulfilling the > place. > In that sense, the proposed method solves a problem who is actually not > there. > If we do not like #<<, then we should remove it from system, but please, > let's not add a more limited method when we have a more generic one who > does the job... > << is horrible, it reminds me to std::cout in C++ and all those cryptic languages where you cannot write a line without checking the API reference manual. HernÃ¡n

July 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] about should:raise: and should:raise:description

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 27.07.2015 um 00:15 schrieb Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de>: > > from the usecase of > > self should:[some operation] raise: AnException description: ' a Text' > > I would expect that the test asserter would compare ' a Text' with the > description of the exception raised. > But it does not happen. > All this test cases succeed, even if the description is different from the > actual exception message. > Is this a bug or is the description text only used as a description > for failing tests? description is only displayed if a test fails. It is just to give more context to assertion that failed Norbert

July 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] about should:raise: and should:raise:description

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 27 Jul 2015, at 00:15, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > from the usecase of > > self should:[some operation] raise: AnException description: ' a Text' > > I would expect that the test asserter would compare ' a Text' with the > description of the exception raised. > But it does not happen. > All this test cases succeed, even if the description is different from the > actual exception message. > Is this a bug or is the description text only used as a description > for failing tests? I would guess the latter, from other 'description' use in assertions. > > nicolai

July 26, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] About nextPutAll: $(

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

+1 I am with Esteban, I see no real need to add this, since we try to minimise the Stream/String APIs. Also, I often add more that just a string between the parenthesis, I want to write to a stream myself, so I would need a block, and that would not be that nice. > On 26 Jul 2015, at 20:49, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Well, If there wouldn't be already a way to do it, I wouldn't care which one to take. But this is not the case: we are discussing the introduction of a new vocabulary when there is already another who is fulfilling the place. > In that sense, the proposed method solves a problem who is actually not there. > If we do not like #<<, then we should remove it from system, but please, let's not add a more limited method when we have a more generic one who does the job... > > I repeat: we are not discussing the introduction of one or another method, but the introduction of one who overlaps another who is already there. > > Cheers, > Esteban > > Ps: I will be back next thursday... I can discuss more then... > > >> On 26 Jul 2015, at 17:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >> I like the solution of hernan better. I think that surrounding is a common pattern. >> >> Stef >> >> Le 25/7/15 22:02, Max Leske a Ã©crit : >>>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 21:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 19:40, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (From my vacations) >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't this solves the problem? >>>>> >>>>> stream << $( << name << $) >>>>> >>>>> It is already there :) >>>> Yes, indeed: >>>> >>>> String streamContents: [ :out | >>>> out <<$( << 'test-' << 123 << $) ] >>>> >>>> (But it is not perfect, there is still confusion there) >>> I agree. Iâve never liked that operator. Apart from #// and #\\ there are pretty much no selectors that make you guess their meaning. The meaning is in all other cases transported through wording, which I feel very comfortable with. Yes, itâs convenient to write but, as Sven points out, I actually find it less readable. I like Hernanâs idea better. >>> >>>> We are trying to reduce the String and Stream API, so any addition should be really important/significant. >>>> >>>>> Now I comeback to watch the see... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 18:39, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In BioSmalltalk I use this pattern a lot: >>>>>> >>>>>> aStream >>>>>> nextPutAll: self name >>>>>> between: $[ -> $]. >>>>>> >>>>>> so yes, that would be a nice inclusion for me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> HernÃ¡n >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-07-24 17:48 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >>>>>> HI >>>>>> >>>>>> while working on a lecture I saw that we have about 75 cases like: >>>>>> >>>>>> aStream nextPut: $(. >>>>>> .... >>>>>> aStream nextPut: $). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> storeOn: aStream >>>>>> "Store a description of the elements of the complement rather than self." >>>>>> >>>>>> aStream nextPut: $(. >>>>>> absent storeOn: aStream. >>>>>> aStream nextPut: $); space; nextPutAll: #complement. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> printElementsOn: aStream >>>>>> aStream nextPut: $(. >>>>>> self size > 100 >>>>>> ifTrue: [aStream nextPutAll: 'size '. >>>>>> self size printOn: aStream] >>>>>> ifFalse: [self keysSortedSafely >>>>>> do: [:key | aStream print: key; >>>>>> nextPutAll: '->'; >>>>>> print: (self at: key); >>>>>> space]]. >>>>>> aStream nextPut: $) >>>>>> >>>>>> we have surroundedBy: aString >>>>>> >>>>>> surroundedBy: aString >>>>>> ^ self class streamContents: [ :s| >>>>>> s nextPutAll: aString. >>>>>> s nextPutAll: self. >>>>>> s nextPutAll: aString ]. >>>>>> >>>>>> But only working on aString. >>>>>> To me it looks like it ia class for having it on stream. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >> >> >

July 26, 2015

about should:raise: and should:raise:description

by Nicolai Hess

from the usecase of self should:[some operation] raise: AnException description: ' a Text' I would expect that the test asserter would compare ' a Text' with the description of the exception raised. But it does not happen. All this test cases succeed, even if the description is different from the actual exception message. Is this a bug or is the description text only used as a description for failing tests? nicolai

July 26, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] About nextPutAll: $(

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Well, If there wouldn't be already a way to do it, I wouldn't care which one to take. But this is not the case: we are discussing the introduction of a new vocabulary when there is already another who is fulfilling the place. In that sense, the proposed method solves a problem who is actually not there. If we do not like #<<, then we should remove it from system, but please, let's not add a more limited method when we have a more generic one who does the job... I repeat: we are not discussing the introduction of one or another method, but the introduction of one who overlaps another who is already there. Cheers, Esteban Ps: I will be back next thursday... I can discuss more then... > On 26 Jul 2015, at 17:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > I like the solution of hernan better. I think that surrounding is a common pattern. > > Stef > > Le 25/7/15 22:02, Max Leske a Ã©crit : >>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 21:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 19:40, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> (From my vacations) >>>> >>>> Doesn't this solves the problem? >>>> >>>> stream << $( << name << $) >>>> >>>> It is already there :) >>> Yes, indeed: >>> >>> String streamContents: [ :out | >>> out <<$( << 'test-' << 123 << $) ] >>> >>> (But it is not perfect, there is still confusion there) >> I agree. Iâve never liked that operator. Apart from #// and #\\ there are pretty much no selectors that make you guess their meaning. The meaning is in all other cases transported through wording, which I feel very comfortable with. Yes, itâs convenient to write but, as Sven points out, I actually find it less readable. I like Hernanâs idea better. >> >>> We are trying to reduce the String and Stream API, so any addition should be really important/significant. >>> >>>> Now I comeback to watch the see... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 18:39, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In BioSmalltalk I use this pattern a lot: >>>>> >>>>> aStream >>>>> nextPutAll: self name >>>>> between: $[ -> $]. >>>>> >>>>> so yes, that would be a nice inclusion for me :) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> HernÃ¡n >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-07-24 17:48 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >>>>> HI >>>>> >>>>> while working on a lecture I saw that we have about 75 cases like: >>>>> >>>>> aStream nextPut: $(. >>>>> .... >>>>> aStream nextPut: $). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> storeOn: aStream >>>>> "Store a description of the elements of the complement rather than self." >>>>> >>>>> aStream nextPut: $(. >>>>> absent storeOn: aStream. >>>>> aStream nextPut: $); space; nextPutAll: #complement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> printElementsOn: aStream >>>>> aStream nextPut: $(. >>>>> self size > 100 >>>>> ifTrue: [aStream nextPutAll: 'size '. >>>>> self size printOn: aStream] >>>>> ifFalse: [self keysSortedSafely >>>>> do: [:key | aStream print: key; >>>>> nextPutAll: '->'; >>>>> print: (self at: key); >>>>> space]]. >>>>> aStream nextPut: $) >>>>> >>>>> we have surroundedBy: aString >>>>> >>>>> surroundedBy: aString >>>>> ^ self class streamContents: [ :s| >>>>> s nextPutAll: aString. >>>>> s nextPutAll: self. >>>>> s nextPutAll: aString ]. >>>>> >>>>> But only working on aString. >>>>> To me it looks like it ia class for having it on stream. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? > >

July 26, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] about quality assistant

by Alexandre Bergel

This is exactly what I want Alexandre > Le 26 juil. 2015 Ã 17:07, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> a Ã©crit : > > Alex with codrCritcis you can mark that a ruel should not apply to a class (ban the rule on the class).

July 26, 2015