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

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

by Esteban Maringolo

Some examples of testing methods verb prefixes I use: shouldXxx (#shouldOverwrite) isXxx (#isEmpty #isNil hasXxx (#hasContents) canXxx (#canDeleteProperty) usesXxx (#usesDirectTransfer) containsXxx (#containsPlots) definesXxx (#definesGlobals) didXxx (#didRemoveFiles) willXxx (#willCreateNewAssets) I'm in favor of having more symbols available as binary selectors, but I don't see the use of ? and ! as unary selectors other than the technical challenge of making the change, with the added burden of breaking compatibility. In a perfect world no testing is required and everything is solved by delegation, but we all know that sometimes the added complexity is not worth it. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > +1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM 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" >> > flag2 := anInteger isEven. âbetter" >> > flag3 := anInteger even?. âhow much better?â >> > flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. âhow much better?â >> >> 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. >> > > Hi Stef, > > I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should. > > -- > Mariano Martinez Peck > Email: marianopeck(a)gmail.com > Twitter: @MartinezPeck > LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck > Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/

Sept. 13, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by ducasse

Teaching pharo too late yesterday, headache now. I will reply. Now you probably see that Iâm learning and changing my mind :) Stef > On 12 Sep 2019, at 21:57, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Funnily, in same period you could find defenders of ? in binary selectors: > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/008893.ht… <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/008893.ht…> > > and more geenral discussion about binary selectors: > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/001466.ht… <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/001466.ht…> > > Stef, u gonna hate me for living in the past ;) > But you don't have to be stuck of course :) > > Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 Ã 21:39, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com <mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>> a Ã©crit : > And to finish with ^, hare is an older implementation > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/015491.ht… <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/015491.ht…> > > And the classical refutation (we should not bother too much about it) > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/005777.ht… <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/005777.ht…> > Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 Ã 20:37, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com <mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>> a Ã©crit : > Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal > Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...) > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13078/Allow-upArrow-caret-as-a-binary-sel… <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13078/Allow-upArrow-caret-as-a-binary-sel…> > Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 21:21, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com <mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>> a Ã©crit : > It was just an answer to: > > > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? > > I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and: > But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting with a restricted set of examples... > > I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good" selector (elected for core libraries). > (since you gave a list of selectors which were OK) > > I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither do I in unary/keyword selectors > (though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's really useful) > > > > Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 20:10, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com <mailto:stepharo@netcourrier.com>> a Ã©crit : > Wait I do not understand what you are saying :) > I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. > Amâi clearer? > > Stef > > >> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com <mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef: >> >> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois) >> for the same reasons that youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly >> >> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 19:44, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com <mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com>> a Ã©crit : >> >> >> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 10:40, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>> a Ã©crit : >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com <mailto:g.cotelli@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) >> >> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. >> >> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly name from C-like languages. >> Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR >> Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) >> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can be supported: >> >> â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] >> 1 â¥ 3 >> â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] >> â includes: 1 >> >> >> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-) >> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ? >> >> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains <https://github.com/len/Domains> >> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like that : >> >> "â is used for direct sums, â for tensor products, Ã for cartesian product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for categorical products." >> >> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors: â â etc... >> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their usage for every package is another thing >> >> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two examples in use in Squeak >> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases) >> <=> space ship operator >> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated) >> >> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a Symbol >> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence. >> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is >> - beautifully self defined as < = > >> - culturally legitimate >> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs) >> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me. >> >> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in core image. >> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not completely inaesthetic ASCII styles >> <|> >< <+> <-> /+/ |*| >> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy) >> /\ \/ intersection and union >> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;) >> etc... >> So why would one want to forbid them? >> >> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss them as regular letters eithers. >> It means accepting huge??? - understand isReallyHuge :) >> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable. >> >> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or maybe any method >> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail. >> >> >> and also define ^ as a binary method: >> >> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices." >> >> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return values. >> >> There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler) >> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff <http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff> >> >> The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax >> >> self doThis. >> ^self doThat >> >> versus >> >> self doThis >> ^self doThat >> >> To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting: >> normally we would write >> >> self doThis ^ self doThat >> >> or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent >> >> self doThis >> ^ self doThat >> >> An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO >> And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a message #self when forgetting the point >> >> self doThis >> self doThat >> >> self doThis self doThat. >> >> >> A+ >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) >> Sorbonne University (SU) >> French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) >> University of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroon >> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." >> https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich <https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich> >

Sept. 13, 2019

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

by Tim Mackinnon

+1 for #shouldXxx I recall I use it a lot too, and #isXxx where that reads better but am struggling for examples. Tim Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Sep 2019, at 02:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM 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" >> > flag2 := anInteger isEven. âbetter" >> > flag3 := anInteger even?. âhow much better?â >> > flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. âhow much better?â >> >> 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. >> > > Hi Stef, > > I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should. > > -- > Mariano Martinez Peck > Email: marianopeck(a)gmail.com > Twitter: @MartinezPeck > LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck > Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/

Sept. 13, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #732: 4574-confusing-comment-in-ThreadSafeTranscriptendEntry

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #732 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #4581 was integrated: "4574-confusing-comment-in-ThreadSafeTranscriptendEntry" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4581 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4574 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 13, 2019

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

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:10 AM 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" > > flag2 := anInteger isEven. âbetter" > > flag3 := anInteger even?. âhow much better?â > > flag4 := #(1 2 3) includes?: 2. âhow much better?â > > 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. > > Hi Stef, I have been facing this ambiguity a lot too. And my workaround, most of the times, was also to prefer the "question" method with #should. #is just doesn't sound right in my cases, but #should does sound good in most of them. I would still like to find a better one, but for the moment, in my recent years, I am stuck with #should. -- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck(a)gmail.com Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-martinez-peck <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/> Blog: https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/

Sept. 13, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by Nicolas Cellier

Funnily, in same period you could find defenders of ? in binary selectors: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/008893.ht… and more geenral discussion about binary selectors: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/001466.ht… Stef, u gonna hate me for living in the past ;) But you don't have to be stuck of course :) Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 Ã 21:39, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > And to finish with ^, hare is an older implementation > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/015491.ht… > > And the classical refutation (we should not bother too much about it) > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/005777.ht… > > Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 Ã 20:37, Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > >> Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal >> Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...) >> >> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13078/Allow-upArrow-caret-as-a-binary-sel… >> >> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 21:21, Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >> >>> It was just an answer to: >>> >>> > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? >>> >>> I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and: >>> But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting >>> with a restricted set of examples... >>> >>> I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a >>> "good" selector (elected for core libraries). >>> (since you gave a list of selectors which were OK) >>> >>> I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither >>> do I in unary/keyword selectors >>> (though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's >>> really useful) >>> >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 20:10, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> a >>> Ã©crit : >>> >>>> Wait I do not understand what you are saying :) >>>> I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would >>>> like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. >>>> Amâi clearer? >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier < >>>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef: >>>> >>>> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly >>>> @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois) >>>> for the same reasons that >>>> youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly >>>> >>>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 19:44, Nicolas Cellier < >>>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 10:40, Serge Stinckwich < >>>>> serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use >>>>>>> for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to >>>>>>> create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping >>>>>>> an ugly name from C-like languages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR >>>>>>> - Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign >>>>>>> for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full >>>>>>> power of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs >>>>>>> can clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but >>>>>>> can be supported: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] >>>>>>> - 1 â¥ 3 >>>>>>> - â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] >>>>>>> - â includes: 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-) >>>>>> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ? >>>>>> >>>>>> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains >>>>>> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like >>>>>> that : >>>>>> >>>>>> "â is used for direct sums, â for tensor products, Ã for cartesian >>>>>> product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for >>>>>> categorical products." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors: â â etc... >>>>> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their >>>>> usage for every package is another thing >>>>> >>>>> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two >>>>> examples in use in Squeak >>>>> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases) >>>>> <=> space ship operator >>>>> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated) >>>>> >>>>> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a >>>>> Symbol >>>>> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, >>>>> because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence. >>>>> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is >>>>> - beautifully self defined as < = > >>>>> - culturally legitimate >>>>> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs) >>>>> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me. >>>>> >>>>> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least >>>>> in core image. >>>>> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not >>>>> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles >>>>> <|> >< <+> <-> /+/ |*| >>>>> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't >>>>> want to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy) >>>>> /\ \/ intersection and union >>>>> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;) >>>>> etc... >>>>> So why would one want to forbid them? >>>>> >>>>> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not >>>>> miss them as regular letters eithers. >>>>> It means accepting huge??? - understand isReallyHuge :) >>>>> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable. >>>>> >>>>> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any >>>>> class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or >>>>> maybe any method >>>>> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new >>>>> Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and also define ^ as a binary method: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as >>>>>> conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and >>>>>> matrices." >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return >>>>>> values. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years >>>>> ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler) >>>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff >>>>> >>>>> The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last >>>>> but one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax >>>>> >>>>> self doThis. >>>>> ^self doThat >>>>> >>>>> versus >>>>> >>>>> self doThis >>>>> ^self doThat >>>>> >>>>> To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting: >>>>> normally we would write >>>>> >>>>> self doThis ^ self doThat >>>>> >>>>> or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent >>>>> >>>>> self doThis >>>>> ^ self doThat >>>>> >>>>> An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO >>>>> And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send >>>>> a message #self when forgetting the point >>>>> >>>>> self doThis >>>>> self doThat >>>>> >>>>> self doThis self doThat. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A+ >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Serge Stinckwic >>>>>> h >>>>>> >>>>>> Int. Research Unit >>>>>> on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) >>>>>> Sorbonne University >>>>>> (SU) >>>>>> French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) >>>>>> U >>>>>> niversity of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroon >>>>>> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally >>>>>> for machines to execute." >>>>>> https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>

Sept. 12, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by Nicolas Cellier

And to finish with ^, hare is an older implementation http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/015491.ht… And the classical refutation (we should not bother too much about it) http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1999-March/005777.ht… Le jeu. 12 sept. 2019 Ã 20:37, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal > Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...) > > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13078/Allow-upArrow-caret-as-a-binary-sel… > > Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 21:21, Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > >> It was just an answer to: >> >> > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? >> >> I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and: >> But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting >> with a restricted set of examples... >> >> I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a >> "good" selector (elected for core libraries). >> (since you gave a list of selectors which were OK) >> >> I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither >> do I in unary/keyword selectors >> (though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's >> really useful) >> >> >> >> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 20:10, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> a >> Ã©crit : >> >>> Wait I do not understand what you are saying :) >>> I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would >>> like that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. >>> Amâi clearer? >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier < >>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef: >>> >>> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly >>> @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois) >>> for the same reasons that >>> youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly >>> >>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 19:44, Nicolas Cellier < >>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 10:40, Serge Stinckwich < >>>> serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use >>>>>> for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to >>>>>> create percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping >>>>>> an ugly name from C-like languages. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR >>>>>> - Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign >>>>>> for scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) >>>>>> >>>>>> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power >>>>>> of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can >>>>>> clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can >>>>>> be supported: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] >>>>>> - 1 â¥ 3 >>>>>> - â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] >>>>>> - â includes: 1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-) >>>>> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ? >>>>> >>>>> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains >>>>> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like >>>>> that : >>>>> >>>>> "â is used for direct sums, â for tensor products, Ã for cartesian >>>>> product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for >>>>> categorical products." >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors: â â etc... >>>> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their >>>> usage for every package is another thing >>>> >>>> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two >>>> examples in use in Squeak >>>> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases) >>>> <=> space ship operator >>>> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated) >>>> >>>> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a >>>> Symbol >>>> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, >>>> because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence. >>>> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is >>>> - beautifully self defined as < = > >>>> - culturally legitimate >>>> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs) >>>> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me. >>>> >>>> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in >>>> core image. >>>> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not >>>> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles >>>> <|> >< <+> <-> /+/ |*| >>>> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want >>>> to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy) >>>> /\ \/ intersection and union >>>> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;) >>>> etc... >>>> So why would one want to forbid them? >>>> >>>> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not >>>> miss them as regular letters eithers. >>>> It means accepting huge??? - understand isReallyHuge :) >>>> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable. >>>> >>>> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any >>>> class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or >>>> maybe any method >>>> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new >>>> Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail. >>>> >>>> >>>>> and also define ^ as a binary method: >>>>> >>>>> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as >>>>> conjugation by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and >>>>> matrices." >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return >>>>> values. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years >>>> ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler) >>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff >>>> >>>> The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but >>>> one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax >>>> >>>> self doThis. >>>> ^self doThat >>>> >>>> versus >>>> >>>> self doThis >>>> ^self doThat >>>> >>>> To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting: >>>> normally we would write >>>> >>>> self doThis ^ self doThat >>>> >>>> or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent >>>> >>>> self doThis >>>> ^ self doThat >>>> >>>> An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO >>>> And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send >>>> a message #self when forgetting the point >>>> >>>> self doThis >>>> self doThat >>>> >>>> self doThis self doThat. >>>> >>>> >>>>> A+ >>>>> -- >>>>> Serge Stinckwic >>>>> h >>>>> >>>>> Int. Research Unit >>>>> on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) >>>>> Sorbonne University >>>>> (SU) >>>>> French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) >>>>> U >>>>> niversity of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroon >>>>> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally >>>>> for machines to execute." >>>>> https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich >>>>> >>>> >>>

Sept. 12, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] I have a dream... or why I think that compatibility is an illusion and bring us to the past

by Nicolas Cellier

Note that I also cared to handle ^ as binary selector for Opal Unfortunately the issue staled (for good or bad reasons, don't know...) https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13078/Allow-upArrow-caret-as-a-binary-sel… Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 21:21, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > It was just an answer to: > > > Do not tell me that there is a value in these selectors? > > I used the same argument for huge?:or!:???and: > But I don't think it's a valid argument: it's making induction starting > with a restricted set of examples... > > I also tried to answer to why and when a binary selector would be a "good" > selector (elected for core libraries). > (since you gave a list of selectors which were OK) > > I said that I don't really need ? nor ! in binary selectors, but neither > do I in unary/keyword selectors > (though I also thought using ? for boolean answer, I don't think it's > really useful) > > > > Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 20:10, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> a > Ã©crit : > >> Wait I do not understand what you are saying :) >> I never said that I want to forbid anything. I just say that I would like >> that ? is not consider as a part of a binary selector. >> Amâi clearer? >> >> Stef >> >> >> On 11 Sep 2019, at 19:48, Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ah, and I forgot about your argumentation Stef: >> >> you cannot forbid binary selectors altogether because some are ugly >> @@*+!!! (I think I read this one in Asterix le gaulois) >> for the same reasons that >> youCanNOtfOrBIDunaYSElectORSWIthletTersBECauSESoMeaREUgly >> >> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 19:44, Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >> >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 Ã 10:40, Serge Stinckwich < >>> serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:14 AM Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looks like Christmas season opened early this year :) >>>>> >>>>> Jokes aside, I'm in favor of changing some of the characters we use >>>>> for binary selectors to allow it to be used in keyword/unary messages. >>>>> >>>>> I'll include % in that list. For me its more useful as a way to create >>>>> percentages ( 5 % ) than to be used as a binary message for keeping an ugly >>>>> name from C-like languages. >>>>> >>>>> - Â· is middle dot and it's used in some math operations AFAIR >>>>> - Ã is used in math also (it's used as the multiplication sign for >>>>> scalars, cross product for vectors and cartesian product for sets) >>>>> >>>>> One thing that would be really cool is that we can use the full power >>>>> of Unicode in methods/class names. Projects like polymath and DSLs can >>>>> clearly take advantage of that. Some examples I've just invented, but can >>>>> be supported: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - â from: 1 to: 5 do: [:i | i + i squared ] >>>>> - 1 â¥ 3 >>>>> - â anyIn: #( 1 2 4) such: [:x | x isPrime ] >>>>> - â includes: 1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes I would like to have something like that for PolyMath :-) >>>> Is it possible to use Unicode characters for identifiers already ? >>>> >>>> I working on the port of : https://github.com/len/Domains >>>> to Pharo. The author modify the Cuis parser, so he can do things like >>>> that : >>>> >>>> "â is used for direct sums, â for tensor products, Ã for cartesian >>>> product, direct product of groups, ring products, and in general for >>>> categorical products." >>>> >>> >>> Of course we want to be able to use those selectors: â â etc... >>> Not using those selectors in core image is one thing, forbiding their >>> usage for every package is another thing >>> >>> Concerning the selectors with more than 2 characters, there are two >>> examples in use in Squeak >>> ==> logical implication (I use it a lot when writing tests cases) >>> <=> space ship operator >>> /// has been used in the past (but is rather deprecated) >>> >>> What is questionable is cultural acceptance of universal meaning of a >>> Symbol >>> <=> could have meant logical equivalence, but it would be pointless, >>> because = (and == thanks to singleton) are already equivalence. >>> It has been expunged from Pharo to my regrets, because it is >>> - beautifully self defined as < = > >>> - culturally legitimate >>> - the art of original author (Travis Griggs) >>> There is no sacred cow, but respect of author has a value for me. >>> >>> It's sure that every binary selector might be questionable, at least in >>> core image. >>> For application, you never know (think DSL) we can create a lot of not >>> completely inaesthetic ASCII styles >>> <|> >< <+> <-> /+/ |*| >>> For example +/- could be used for interval arithmetic (if we don't want >>> to pay the burden of typing unicode, which ain't easy) >>> /\ \/ intersection and union >>> |\| the Nicolas operator - I didn't fin a usage for it yet ;) >>> etc... >>> So why would one want to forbid them? >>> >>> For ? and ! I do not foresee elegant usage as binary, but would not miss >>> them as regular letters eithers. >>> It means accepting huge??? - understand isReallyHuge :) >>> huge?:or!:???and: which are not less questionable. >>> >>> Ideally, it should be really easy to define one's own syntax in any >>> class (already possible with own compiler/parser/scanner/whatever), or >>> maybe any method >>> I find that it's somehow more complex with the well engineered new >>> Compiler than it was with the very hackish legacy one, but that's a detail. >>> >>> >>>> and also define ^ as a binary method: >>>> >>>> "The ^ (hat) operator is used for exponentiation as well as conjugation >>>> by group elements, and for creating free modules of tuples and matrices." >>>> >>>> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because ^ is used also to return >>>> values. >>>> >>> >>> There is no ambiguity for ^ and i have proposed that in Squeak years >>> ago, it's a very simple change (here for legacy Compiler) >>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Compiler-nice.280.diff >>> >>> The only argument against it is that omitting the point ending last but >>> one sentence would not be detected as invalid syntax >>> >>> self doThis. >>> ^self doThat >>> >>> versus >>> >>> self doThis >>> ^self doThat >>> >>> To address this concern, we could have rules concerning the formatting: >>> normally we would write >>> >>> self doThis ^ self doThat >>> >>> or eventually if on several lines, we would generally indent >>> >>> self doThis >>> ^ self doThat >>> >>> An unusual formatting is a code smell IMO >>> And in fact, this is not much different from un-detecting when we send a >>> message #self when forgetting the point >>> >>> self doThis >>> self doThat >>> >>> self doThis self doThat. >>> >>> >>>> A+ >>>> -- >>>> Serge Stinckwic >>>> h >>>> >>>> Int. Research Unit >>>> on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) >>>> Sorbonne University >>>> (SU) >>>> French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) >>>> U >>>> niversity of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroon >>>> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for >>>> machines to execute." >>>> https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich >>>> >>> >>

Sept. 12, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #731: Remove somme Smalltalk references on Spec-2 example

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #731 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #4567 was integrated: "Remove somme Smalltalk references on Spec-2 example" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4567 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/SmalltalkRemovalInSpec2Example Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 12, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #730: 4544-MethodPragmaTest-triggers-code-rewrite----commit-to-repository

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #730 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #4568 was integrated: "4544-MethodPragmaTest-triggers-code-rewrite----commit-to-repository" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4568 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/4544 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Sept. 12, 2019