September 2019 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo 8.0] Build #741: 4614-Remove-unnecessary-dots

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #741 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #4615 was integrated: "4614-Remove-unnecessary-dots" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4615 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4614 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 16, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #740: 4559-visitSlotInitializationNode-should-not-be-subclassResponsibility

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #740 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #4560 was integrated: "4559-visitSlotInitializationNode-should-not-be-subclassResponsibility" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4560 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4559 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 16, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #739: 4622-Cleanup-Arrayed-collections-tests

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #739 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #4623 was integrated: "4622-Cleanup-Arrayed-collections-tests" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4623 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4622 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 16, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] about threeWayCompareTo:

by Esteban Maringolo

I haven't followed nor maintained the SortFunctions library, but it relied heavily on the response of that method, by means of the "spaceship operator" ( #<=>), I think that Sven later changed such operator to "threeWayCompareTo:". I don't know whether the primitive is available now, it wasn't back then. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:52 AM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > > I see > > threeWayCompareTo: aString > "Do a three-way comparison between the receiver and anotherObject, returning > -1 if self < anotherObject > 0 if self = anotherObject > 1 if self > anotherObject > This assumes a total order in accordance with the mathematical law of trichotomy. > See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-way_comparison" > > ^ (self compare: self with: aString collated: AsciiOrder) - 2 > > And I thought that we got a new primitive returning -101 directly > Is it not the case? > > Stef > > > String>>compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order > > "'abc' = 'abc' asWideString >>> true" > "'abc' asWideString = 'abc' >>> true" > "(ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString ~= 'a000' asWideString >>> true" > "('abc' sameAs: 'aBc' asWideString) >>> true" > "('aBc' asWideString sameAs: 'abc') >>> true" > "('a000' asWideString ~= (ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString) >>> true" > "((ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString sameAs: 'Abcd' asWideString) >>> false" > "('a000' asWideString sameAs: (ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString) >>> false" > > (string1 isByteString and: [string2 isByteString]) ifTrue: [ > ^ ByteString compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order]. > "Primitive does not fail properly right now" > ^ String compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order > > > ByteString>>compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order > "Return 1, 2 or 3, if string1 is <, =, or > string2, with the collating order of characters given by the order array." > > | len1 len2 c1 c2 | > <primitive: 'primitiveCompareString' module: 'MiscPrimitivePlugin'> > > <var: #string1 declareC: 'unsigned char *string1'> > <var: #string2 declareC: 'unsigned char *string2'> > <var: #order declareC: 'unsigned char *order'> > > len1 := string1 size. > len2 := string2 size. > 1 to: (len1 min: len2) do: > [:i | > c1 := order at: (string1 basicAt: i) + 1. > c2 := order at: (string2 basicAt: i) + 1. > c1 = c2 ifFalse: > [c1 < c2 ifTrue: [^ 1] ifFalse: [^ 3]]]. > len1 = len2 ifTrue: [^ 2]. > len1 < len2 ifTrue: [^ 1] ifFalse: [^ 3]. > > > >

Sept. 16, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] about threeWayCompareTo:

by Nicolas Cellier

This was WIP, don't know if it stalled... Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 Ã 08:52, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> a Ã©crit : > I see > > threeWayCompareTo: aString > "Do a three-way comparison between the receiver and anotherObject, > returning > -1 if self < anotherObject > 0 if self = anotherObject > 1 if self > anotherObject > This assumes a total order in accordance with the mathematical law > of trichotomy. > See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-way_comparison" > > ^ (self compare: self with: aString collated: AsciiOrder) - 2 > > And I thought that we got a new primitive returning -101 directly > Is it not the case? > > Stef > > > String>>compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order > > "'abc' = 'abc' asWideString >>> true" > "'abc' asWideString = 'abc' >>> true" > "(ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString ~= 'a000' > asWideString >>> true" > "('abc' sameAs: 'aBc' asWideString) >>> true" > "('aBc' asWideString sameAs: 'abc') >>> true" > "('a000' asWideString ~= (ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: > 0) asString) >>> true" > "((ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString sameAs: > 'Abcd' asWideString) >>> false" > "('a000' asWideString sameAs: (ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 > with: 0) asString) >>> false" > > (string1 isByteString and: [string2 isByteString]) ifTrue: [ > ^ ByteString compare: string1 with: string2 collated: > order]. > "Primitive does not fail properly right now" > ^ String compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order > > > ByteString>>compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order > "Return 1, 2 or 3, if string1 is <, =, or > string2, with the > collating order of characters given by the order array." > > | len1 len2 c1 c2 | > <primitive: 'primitiveCompareString' module: 'MiscPrimitivePlugin'> > > <var: #string1 declareC: 'unsigned char *string1'> > <var: #string2 declareC: 'unsigned char *string2'> > <var: #order declareC: 'unsigned char *order'> > > len1 := string1 size. > len2 := string2 size. > 1 to: (len1 min: len2) do: > [:i | > c1 := order at: (string1 basicAt: i) + 1. > c2 := order at: (string2 basicAt: i) + 1. > c1 = c2 ifFalse: > [c1 < c2 ifTrue: [^ 1] ifFalse: [^ 3]]]. > len1 = len2 ifTrue: [^ 2]. > len1 < len2 ifTrue: [^ 1] ifFalse: [^ 3]. > > > > >

Sept. 16, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Allow selected special characters as part of unary and keyword selectors?

by Ronie Salgado

> > areBlockBracketsLinedUp - reads well with the past-tense phrasing Technically, that is in present tense but using the passive voice. Passive voice is used to emphasize who receives an action, instead of who performs the action. El sÃ¡b., 14 sept. 2019 a las 16:07, Christopher Fuhrman (< christopher.fuhrman(a)etsmtl.ca>) escribiÃ³: > Crazy idea inspired by Spanish: > > Â¿even? > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 04:38 ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 20:52, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >> >> I agree with Benâs reaction below , however the point that ? ! could be >> repurposed for something if they werenât special characters is a good one. >> Maybe there are other usages we are missing, and thatâs the point I guess. >> >> >> Exactly. >> I think that it would be nice to think a bit. >> I like the idea that I do not have to read the code to understand if a >> method is a predicate. >> >> odd? >> even? >> >> Stef >> >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 17:41, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:10, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > On 11 Sep 2019, at 04:07, James Foster <Smalltalk(a)JGFoster.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > Would use of ? and ! in unary/keyword selectors be convention or >>> somehow required? If simply convention, then we should start with renaming >>> testing methods to be named is* or has*. >>> > flag1 := anInteger even. ânot good" >>> >> >> Agreed. That could "almost" be construed as converting a 3 to a 2 or 4. >> >> >> > flag2 := anInteger isEven. âbetter" >>> >> >> Agreed. It reads well. >> >> >> > flag3 := anInteger even?. âhow much better?â >>> >> >> For me, this doesn't read as well as flag2, but even though there is some >> redundancy, for me a combination reads well... >> flag3a := anInteger isEven? >> Perhaps if "?"==>Boolean was a strong convention then there could be a >> check when the value is returned rather than when it is used (or would that >> complicate other things?) >> >> >> > flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. âhow much better?â >>> >> >> My first impression is "yuck!", but then I think... "maybe" if there was >> a definite benefit (i.e. optimization) from strong guarantees about the >> return value being Boolean. >> >> >> >>> >>> I think that I would use ? mainly for unary message >>> >>> Now Iâm sure that if you look carefully some people use >>> >>> include >>> for the action >>> includes >>> for the tests >>> >>> I took include as an example and this is super not intention revealing. >>> >>> >> lineUpBlockBrackets >>> >>> lineUpBlockBrackets? >>> Now I will rewrite them all as shouldLineUpBlockBrackets or >>> isLineUpBlockBrackets and to me for unary message ? makes it a lot better. >>> >> >> btw, some alternatives... >> doBlockBracketsLineUp - reads well but "do" is already a loaded word >> areBlockBracketsLinedUp - reads well with the past-tense phrasing >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> -- > Christopher Fuhrman, P.Eng., PhD > > *Professeur au DÃ©partement de gÃ©nie logiciel et des technologies de > l'informationÃTS (Ãcole de technologie supÃ©rieure)* > > http://profs.etsmtl.ca/cfuhrman > +1 514 396 8638 > *L'ÃTS est une constituante de l'UniversitÃ© du QuÃ©bec* >

Sept. 16, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #738: Fixes: #4602 format: examples should be separated

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #738 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #4604 was integrated: "Fixes: #4602 format: examples should be separated" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4604 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4602 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 16, 2019

about threeWayCompareTo:

by ducasse

I see threeWayCompareTo: aString "Do a three-way comparison between the receiver and anotherObject, returning -1 if self < anotherObject 0 if self = anotherObject 1 if self > anotherObject This assumes a total order in accordance with the mathematical law of trichotomy. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-way_comparison" ^ (self compare: self with: aString collated: AsciiOrder) - 2 And I thought that we got a new primitive returning -101 directly Is it not the case? Stef String>>compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order "'abc' = 'abc' asWideString >>> true" "'abc' asWideString = 'abc' >>> true" "(ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString ~= 'a000' asWideString >>> true" "('abc' sameAs: 'aBc' asWideString) >>> true" "('aBc' asWideString sameAs: 'abc') >>> true" "('a000' asWideString ~= (ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString) >>> true" "((ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString sameAs: 'Abcd' asWideString) >>> false" "('a000' asWideString sameAs: (ByteArray with: 97 with: 0 with: 0 with: 0) asString) >>> false" (string1 isByteString and: [string2 isByteString]) ifTrue: [ ^ ByteString compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order]. "Primitive does not fail properly right now" ^ String compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order ByteString>>compare: string1 with: string2 collated: order "Return 1, 2 or 3, if string1 is <, =, or > string2, with the collating order of characters given by the order array." | len1 len2 c1 c2 | <primitive: 'primitiveCompareString' module: 'MiscPrimitivePlugin'> <var: #string1 declareC: 'unsigned char *string1'> <var: #string2 declareC: 'unsigned char *string2'> <var: #order declareC: 'unsigned char *order'> len1 := string1 size. len2 := string2 size. 1 to: (len1 min: len2) do: [:i | c1 := order at: (string1 basicAt: i) + 1. c2 := order at: (string2 basicAt: i) + 1. c1 = c2 ifFalse: [c1 < c2 ifTrue: [^ 1] ifFalse: [^ 3]]]. len1 = len2 ifTrue: [^ 2]. len1 < len2 ifTrue: [^ 1] ifFalse: [^ 3].

Sept. 16, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo Launcher is broken out of the box.

by Todd Blanchard

Sure, here you are. https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-launcher/issues/355 > On Sep 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Christophe Demarey <christophe.demarey(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > Hi Todd, > > Thanks for the report. > Could you create an issue on Github and explain the way to reproduce? > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-launcher/issues <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-launcher/issues> > > Regards, > Christophe > >> Le 15 sept. 2019 Ã 21:04, Todd Blanchard via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> a Ã©crit : >> >> >> De: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard(a)mac.com <mailto:tblanchard@mac.com>> >> Objet: Pharo Launcher is broken out of the box. >> Date: 15 septembre 2019 Ã 21:04:43 UTC+2 >> Ã: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> >> >> >> I just downloaded the latest Pharo Launcher. >> >> It is throwing some errors. >> >> <PharoLauncher.image 2019-09-15 11-36-27.png> >> >> >

Sept. 16, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo Launcher is broken out of the box.

by Christophe Demarey

Hi Todd, Thanks for the report. Could you create an issue on Github and explain the way to reproduce? https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-launcher/issues Regards, Christophe > Le 15 sept. 2019 Ã 21:04, Todd Blanchard via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> a Ã©crit : > > > De: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard(a)mac.com> > Objet: Pharo Launcher is broken out of the box. > Date: 15 septembre 2019 Ã 21:04:43 UTC+2 > Ã: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > > > I just downloaded the latest Pharo Launcher. > > It is throwing some errors. > > <PharoLauncher.image 2019-09-15 11-36-27.png> > >

Sept. 15, 2019