February 2016 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Setting the font for a spec button

by Stephan Eggermont

On 26-02-16 20:44, stepharo wrote: > Stephan > > I created a Spec tutorial on github and the goal is to gather all the > material on Spec. > Do you want to add your example in a file? So that it does not get lost Yes, I'll commit some examples Stephan

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run time checking with design by contract assertions

by stepharo

>>> Now can you support the old value? > > Sorry I responded too quickly, I thought you where talking of the > syntax (no problem) > but you mean the value before the call I guess. > I didn't understood at first. > yes it should be possible too, a bit trickier, with an small extra > cost in performance but cool You see this is a lot more difficult than it appears. ***Ideally*** old should be a full copy of the object :) But we can live with an approx solution. In any case I would really love to see if we can have contracts in classes in Pharo libraries and see how it improves them. I would like to see the performance penalties. What we could have is the following: When we run the tests we run them twice One with contracts on and one without contracts. - first the results should be same :) - second the contracts should be working Then we could start to have test harnessing (I know that guys from argentina did some libraries for that) and we could have better tests and find bugs in code by using the contracts. Stef

Feb. 26, 2016

[updated Pharo by example] new chapter to review

by stepharo

https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/view/Books/job/UpdatedPharoByExample… I hope that in Pharo 6 we will migrate to Xstreams but for now this chapter should be ok. Stef

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run time checking with design by contract assertions

by Alain Rastoul

On 26/02/2016 21:23, Alain Rastoul wrote: > On 26/02/2016 20:51, stepharo wrote: >> Now can you support the old value? Sorry I responded too quickly, I thought you where talking of the syntax (no problem) but you mean the value before the call I guess. I didn't understood at first. yes it should be possible too, a bit trickier, with an small extra cost in performance but cool -- Alain

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run time checking with design by contract assertions

by Alain Rastoul

On 26/02/2016 20:51, stepharo wrote: > I like the idea that you package to postcondition, invariant and > precondition > not in the methods themselves but in separate methods. > I did not think about that but this is nice because you do not pollute > the code > and we could put them in a precondition protocols. Yes that was the idea. to think about what your code should do without being in code logic or reading to much the code ie. keep it separated from the implementation . even with another browser like the tools pointed to by Stephan which looks really cool (the screen shots a least) > > About the pragma why not > > isEmpty > > <preconditionOf: #add:> > > I think that it is nicer than > > <contract: #postcondition ....> > > Yes much nicer ... And the same with <postconditionOf:..> much clearer > Now can you support the old value? yes, I think no problem to support both that's a part I'll refactor anyway, it is a bit ugly because I changed several times and wanted to make my tests pass. Another point is that I would like to use it on itself, see how it runs on itself, but also how I can express it in terms of contracts ... > > Stef > > -- Alain

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] when saving bloc and relaunching I get

by Aliaksei Syrel

The same for me... Looks like something spur related. I could not find what causes an issue :( On Feb 26, 2016 8:39 PM, "stepharo" <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run time checking with design by contract assertions

by Alain Rastoul

On 26/02/2016 20:47, stepharo wrote: > You see if me and alex got confused and we know quite well what is > design by contract > then better changed the syntax > > Stef > Yes, of course, that's what I thought. This is done and on smalltalkhub now. As soon as Marcus implement the return node in MetaLink as he said, I add the ability to test the returned values. There is lot left to do, I'll add more tests and refactor in the meanwhile. I'm eager to see the result of this poc. :) -- Alain

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run time checking with design by contract assertions

by stepharo

I like the idea that you package to postcondition, invariant and precondition not in the methods themselves but in separate methods. I did not think about that but this is nice because you do not pollute the code and we could put them in a precondition protocols. About the pragma why not isEmpty <preconditionOf: #add:> I think that it is nicer than <contract: #postcondition ....> Now can you support the old value? Stef

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run time checking with design by contract assertions

by stepharo

You see if me and alex got confused and we know quite well what is design by contract then better changed the syntax Stef Le 26/2/16 11:50, Alain Rastoul a Ã©crit : > On 26/02/2016 11:26, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> Hi Alain, >> >> Having contract is a valuable effort! >> >>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> <contract: #ensured appliedTo: #( #add: )> >> >> What does that mean? >> <contract: #ensured appliedTo: #( #add: )> >> >> Alexandre >> > Hi Alexandre, > > a method with a pragma > <contract: #ensured appliedTo: #( #add: ) > > means it is a check that must be ensured by (enforced by) the method > to which it applies (here add:). > The add: method of the object *must* verify this check, when the check > is executed, it must return true. > > May be the terms I've choosed are confusing at first, but it was > voluntary, preCondition, postCondition are too much program execution > oriented IMHO, not enough assertive . > > btw it is easy to change: > one could say here: > <contract: postcondition on: #( #add: )> > > may be better ? > > or may be better to support both ... :) > > > Alain > > >

Feb. 26, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Setting the font for a spec button

by stepharo

Stephan I created a Spec tutorial on github and the goal is to gather all the material on Spec. Do you want to add your example in a file? So that it does not get lost Stef Le 26/2/16 17:45, Stephan Eggermont a Ã©crit : > Makes it possible to use icon fonts > > Stephan

Feb. 26, 2016