September 2018 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1253: 22456 dynamic left to right columns layout generates an additional unneeded row with null presenters

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1253 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1803 was integrated: "22456 dynamic left to right columns layout generates an additional unneeded row with null presenters" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1803 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22456 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Platform file encoding for FFI

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 18 Sep 2018, at 11:04, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no <mailto:henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no>> wrote: > Guillermo Polito wrote > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:52 PM Alistair Grant < > > > akgrant0710@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Esteban, Guille and Everyone, > >> > >> I haven't looked at using FFI much, however it is easy to imagine that > >> different file encoding rules on different platforms will make writing > >> FFI calls more difficult, > > > > > > Well not really (from my point of view :)) > > From the point of view of the FFI call an encoded string is just a bunch > > of > > bytes. FFI does not do any interpretation of them. > > It *would* be pretty handy for adding some auto-conversion into the > marshaller based on parameter encoding options though... (other than > filename, could be done in smalltalk using exisiting encoders) > > self > ffiCall: #(bool saveContentsToFile(String fileName, String contents)) > options: #(+stringEncodings( fileName return , platformAPI contents) > > Well, I like this idea. > > (And yes, I've probably badly mangled the options syntax) > > Is much less verbose than having to manually convert Strings to the proper > platform Unicode encodings before calling. > Depends a bit on whether the primitive argument is > Byte/Widestrings(latin1/utf32), or if it accepts only utf8 bytes and one has > to convert first anyways. > > It's not like this isn't a pain point, there are plenty of currently used > API's that are broken if you try to use non-ascii. > > Yes, but I think this may be because in general people tend to not know how encodings work... (even myself I don't feel I know enough :)) > But this makes me think that we should make encoding explicit? Yup, explicit please. Nothing hide behind the carpet :) > > Maybe we should force people to specify an encoding if they specify a callout using a string. > And then, either they specify it at the level of the callout, or at the level of the library (like setting a default encoding for all strings). You can have some global FFI settings (I was thinking on adding some global options settings for FFI in general, btw) and even âlibrary based settingsâ, to simplify. Esteban > > Because this raises also the question of what is the default encoding? > And I'd say that in there is no satisfactory default encoding...

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Platform file encoding for FFI

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 18 Sep 2018, at 10:42, Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no> wrote: > > Guillermo Polito wrote >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:52 PM Alistair Grant < > >> akgrant0710@ > >> > >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Esteban, Guille and Everyone, >>> >>> I haven't looked at using FFI much, however it is easy to imagine that >>> different file encoding rules on different platforms will make writing >>> FFI calls more difficult, >> >> >> Well not really (from my point of view :)) >> From the point of view of the FFI call an encoded string is just a bunch >> of >> bytes. FFI does not do any interpretation of them. > > It *would* be pretty handy for adding some auto-conversion into the > marshaller based on parameter encoding options though... (other than > filename, could be done in smalltalk using exisiting encoders) > > self > ffiCall: #(bool saveContentsToFile(String fileName, String contents)) > options: #(+stringEncodings( fileName return , platformAPI contents) This is cool. What I do not like is to rely on primitives to do that encoding. This should be in imageâ¦ using FFI if needed (this is all because we want to rely less and less on plugins :P) Esteban > > (And yes, I've probably badly mangled the options syntax) > > Is much less verbose than having to manually convert Strings to the proper > platform Unicode encodings before calling. > Depends a bit on whether the primitive argument is > Byte/Widestrings(latin1/utf32), or if it accepts only utf8 bytes and one has > to convert first anyways. > > It's not like this isn't a pain point, there are plenty of currently used > API's that are broken if you try to use non-ascii. > > Cheers, > Henry > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html >

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [rmod] Float should not implement #to:, #to:by:, etc...

by Guillermo Polito

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:06 AM Julien <julien.delplanque(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > I realised that it is possible to create an interval of floats. > > I think this is bad because, since intervals are computed by successively > adding a number, it might result in precision errors. > > (0.0 to: 1.0 by: 0.1) asArray >>> #(0.0 0.1 0.2 0.30000000000000004 0.4 > 0.5 0.6000000000000001 0.7000000000000001 0.8 0.9 1.0) > > The correct (precise) way to do it would be to use ScaledDecimal: > > (0.0s1 to: 1.0s1 by: 0.1s1) asArray >>> #(0.0s1 0.1s1 0.2s1 0.3s1 0.4s1 > 0.5s1 0.6s1 0.7s1 0.8s1 0.9s1 1.0s1) > > I opened an issue about it: > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22467/Float-should-not-implement-to-to-by… > > And Iâd like to discuss this with you. > > What do you think? > Well, I think it's a matter of balance :) #to:by: is defined in Number. So we could, for example, cancel it in Float. However, people would still be able to do 1 to: 1.0 by: 0.1 Which would still show problems. And moreover, we could try to do 1 to: 7 by: (Margin fromNumber: 1) And even worse 1 to: Object new by: (Margin fromNumber: 1) I think adding type-validations all over the place is not a good solution, and is kind of opposite to our philosophy... So we should - document the good usages - document the bad ones - and live with the fact that we have a relaxed type system that will fail at runtime :) Guille

Sept. 18, 2018

Float should not implement #to:, #to:by:, etc...

by Julien

Hello, I realised that it is possible to create an interval of floats. I think this is bad because, since intervals are computed by successively adding a number, it might result in precision errors. (0.0 to: 1.0 by: 0.1) asArray >>> #(0.0 0.1 0.2 0.30000000000000004 0.4 0.5 0.6000000000000001 0.7000000000000001 0.8 0.9 1.0) The correct (precise) way to do it would be to use ScaledDecimal: (0.0s1 to: 1.0s1 by: 0.1s1) asArray >>> #(0.0s1 0.1s1 0.2s1 0.3s1 0.4s1 0.5s1 0.6s1 0.7s1 0.8s1 0.9s1 1.0s1) I opened an issue about it: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22467/Float-should-not-implement-to-to-by… <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22467/Float-should-not-implement-to-to-by…> And Iâd like to discuss this with you. What do you think? Cheers, Julien --- Julien Delplanque Doctorant Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Lille http://juliendelplanque.be/phd.html Equipe Rmod, Inria BÃ¢timent B 40, Avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq NumÃ©ro de tÃ©lÃ©phone: +333 59 35 86 40

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Platform file encoding for FFI

by Guillermo Polito

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM Henrik Sperre Johansen < henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no> wrote: > Guillermo Polito wrote > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:52 PM Alistair Grant < > > > akgrant0710@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Esteban, Guille and Everyone, > >> > >> I haven't looked at using FFI much, however it is easy to imagine that > >> different file encoding rules on different platforms will make writing > >> FFI calls more difficult, > > > > > > Well not really (from my point of view :)) > > From the point of view of the FFI call an encoded string is just a bunch > > of > > bytes. FFI does not do any interpretation of them. > > It *would* be pretty handy for adding some auto-conversion into the > marshaller based on parameter encoding options though... (other than > filename, could be done in smalltalk using exisiting encoders) > > self > ffiCall: #(bool saveContentsToFile(String fileName, String contents)) > options: #(+stringEncodings( fileName return , platformAPI contents) > Well, I like this idea. (And yes, I've probably badly mangled the options syntax) > > Is much less verbose than having to manually convert Strings to the proper > platform Unicode encodings before calling. > Depends a bit on whether the primitive argument is > Byte/Widestrings(latin1/utf32), or if it accepts only utf8 bytes and one > has > to convert first anyways. > > It's not like this isn't a pain point, there are plenty of currently used > API's that are broken if you try to use non-ascii. > Yes, but I think this may be because in general people tend to not know how encodings work... (even myself I don't feel I know enough :)) But this makes me think that we should make encoding explicit? Maybe we should force people to specify an encoding if they specify a callout using a string. And then, either they specify it at the level of the callout, or at the level of the library (like setting a default encoding for all strings). Because this raises also the question of what is the default encoding? And I'd say that in there is no satisfactory default encoding...

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Platform file encoding for FFI

by Henrik Sperre Johansen

Guillermo Polito wrote > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:52 PM Alistair Grant < > akgrant0710@ > > > wrote: > > >> Would it be useful for future FFI work to have primitives available >> which convert file names to and from the various platform specific >> formats? (Linux is basically a no-op, and Windows could be written >> in-image, but OSX requires the platform routines to be called). >> > > Maybe... Are the OSX routines exposed as C functions (that we can call > through FFI) or they are objective-C methods/functions (that are more > complicated to map)? > > Thanks Alistair! +1. From the image point of view, the non-standard normal form used on OSX is the biggest issue. If it's available through FFI, the platform-specific String encoding options I mentioned previously could be implemented entirely in the image. If there are extra hoops to jump though, like having to provide utf8 to said FFI function, it might still be worth it for the reduced performance overhead. Cheers, Henry -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Platform file encoding for FFI

by Henrik Sperre Johansen

Guillermo Polito wrote > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:52 PM Alistair Grant < > akgrant0710@ > > > wrote: > >> Hi Esteban, Guille and Everyone, >> >> I haven't looked at using FFI much, however it is easy to imagine that >> different file encoding rules on different platforms will make writing >> FFI calls more difficult, > > > Well not really (from my point of view :)) > From the point of view of the FFI call an encoded string is just a bunch > of > bytes. FFI does not do any interpretation of them. It *would* be pretty handy for adding some auto-conversion into the marshaller based on parameter encoding options though... (other than filename, could be done in smalltalk using exisiting encoders) self ffiCall: #(bool saveContentsToFile(String fileName, String contents)) options: #(+stringEncodings( fileName return , platformAPI contents) (And yes, I've probably badly mangled the options syntax) Is much less verbose than having to manually convert Strings to the proper platform Unicode encodings before calling. Depends a bit on whether the primitive argument is Byte/Widestrings(latin1/utf32), or if it accepts only utf8 bytes and one has to convert first anyways. It's not like this isn't a pain point, there are plenty of currently used API's that are broken if you try to use non-ascii. Cheers, Henry -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

Sept. 18, 2018

Fraction and ScaledDecimal should be not be serialized as Float in STON format

by Julien

Hello, I realised that in the current implementation, when a number is serialised by STON it is either as an integer literal or as a float literal. There is a risk to loose precision, especially if what you serialise is a ScaledDecimal or a fraction. I propose a simple change to fix this: 1. Add STONWriter>>#isInJsonMode method which returns true if the STONWriter wants to write JSON 2. Add: Fraction>>#stonOn: stonWriter stonWriter isInJsonMode ifTrue: [ ^ super stonOn: stonWriter ]. stonWriter writeObject: self streamMap: [ :dictionary | dictionary at: #numerator put: numerator. dictionary at: #denominator put: denominator ] 3. Add: ScaledDecimal>>#stonOn: stonWriter stonWriter isInJsonMode ifTrue: [ ^ super stonOn: stonWriter ]. stonWriter writeObject: self streamMap: [ :dictionary | dictionary at: #numerator put: numerator. dictionary at: #denominator put: denominator. dictionary at: #scale put: scale ] This change has a main drawback, storing fractions and scaled decimal will result in a huge overhead. Maybe for ScaledDecimal we can use Pharoâs literal (e.g. 1.12s2). For fractions I donât know what literal could be used? Or maybe the overhead is fine? Cheers, Julien --- Julien Delplanque Doctorant Ã lâUniversitÃ© de Lille http://juliendelplanque.be/phd.html Equipe Rmod, Inria BÃ¢timent B 40, Avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq NumÃ©ro de tÃ©lÃ©phone: +333 59 35 86 40

Sept. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] UndefinedClasses as first class entities for P7

by Guillermo Polito

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > Kind of related - we did get the ability to save methods with undefined > classes and undeclared variables (vs having to correct this to save). So at > least a nod to that? > Yes, I was following your progress there :) And since you have practical experience with this in excercism, It would be ***really lovely*** if you can check our paper/code and give us some feedback.

Sept. 18, 2018