- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3734 in pharo: Build of 1.1 Full is broken...

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: WontFix Comment #1 on issue 3734 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: Build of 1.1 Full is broken... http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3734 As 1.2 is the new stable, we do stop the builds of 1.1 on Hudson (1.1 is just in the archive, static).

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3815 in pharo: Filing in Class comments raises an error

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #13 on issue 3815 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: Filing in Class comments raises an error http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3815 Henrik I think that this is clearly a showstopper for 1.2 and this will be just a patch on a huge patch. I prefer to keep my energy to rebuild something from scratch using ring

March 14, 2011

[Pharo-project] removing toolbuilder

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi guys since the esug discussion and request to take action, I kept that issue in my mind. Now I think that we should remove toolbuilder since it serves a purpose we do not need right now (developing tools to new ui framworks,...platform). Now if somebody uses it I suggest to maintain it. Stef

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess

by Igor Stasenko

i added this to issue tracker :) On 14 March 2011 16:54, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> wrote: > +1 > > > > ________________________________________ > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Casimiro de Almeida Barreto [casimiro.barreto(a)gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:37 AM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess > > +1 > > OSProcess important > FFI and/or "Alien running Ok in Linux and Windows" important > > CdAB > > Em 13-03-2011 06:46, StÃ©phane Ducasse escreveu: >> +1 >> >> OSProcess is really important for us. >> Like a good FFI >> >> Stef >> >> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3806 in pharo: Duration>>hours is broken

by Geert Claes

Brent Pinkney-2 wrote: > > ... > Hell, my initials are all over the code, just ask. > > Cheers > > Brent the Tolerant and Approachable > No worries, I fully agree with the draft ANSI spec approach and that everyone should be able to just ask Geert the diplomat and peace-keeper :) -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Issue-3806-in-pharo-Duration-hours-is-broken-tp334831… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] PBenchmark as a general framework for benchmarking in Smalltalk (commit access)

by Igor Stasenko

+1 to SMark On 14 March 2011 15:06, Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no> wrote: > On 14.03.2011 10:19, Stefan Marr wrote: >> >> Hi Toon: >> >> On 14 Mar 2011, at 09:52, Toon Verwaest wrote: >>>> >>>> Since the general idea is to write benchmarks like unit tests, how about >>>> 'SMark'/'SBench' instead of 'SUnit'? >>> >>> And he immediately calls it after himself! S<tefan>mar<r>k ;) >> >> Rather farfetched no? :-P >> >> The SMark was inspired by names like 3DMark, FutureMark, CoreMark, >> SYSmark, WebMark, MobileMark. > > I was actually about to suggest we call it SMarrk earlier today, but that > would probably be too obvious :D > > Anyways, in regards to using PharoBenchmarks/PBenchmark/etc, +100 to > Stefan's reply. > It is important to keep the framework in a separate repository. (whose name > does not imply it is specific to any dialect) > Mariano: Don't mix/confuse the framework with the uses of it. > > Cheers, > Henry > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

+1 ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Casimiro de Almeida Barreto [casimiro.barreto(a)gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:37 AM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess +1 OSProcess important FFI and/or "Alien running Ok in Linux and Windows" important CdAB Em 13-03-2011 06:46, StÃ©phane Ducasse escreveu: > +1 > > OSProcess is really important for us. > Like a good FFI > > Stef > > On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] The current status of OSProcess

by Casimiro de Almeida Barreto

+1 OSProcess important FFI and/or "Alien running Ok in Linux and Windows" important CdAB Em 13-03-2011 06:46, StÃ©phane Ducasse escreveu: > +1 > > OSProcess is really important for us. > Like a good FFI > > Stef > > On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3806 in pharo: Duration>>hours is broken

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I like your signature :) On Mar 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Brent Pinkney wrote: > Hi, > > Lets end this thread quickly - I don't think it warrants a flame war. > > I took a hard line on the "toddler" bit as there is a tendency for some, often new > members in the community to jump to conclusions about what is a pretty elegent > platform (Squeak), and presume oversight or errors by default. > Hence the "bona fide..." bit :) > > Further, arguments starting with "...everyone knows X..." is just not a reasonable > starting point, post Enlightenment and outside theocracies. > > Many things about date and time libraries are just not obvious, which is why by > Java 1.2 they already had 6 different date/time classes (if I recall). > > A better approach is to enquire as to why something is the way it is. By > way of example, the loose consensus at the time was to follow the draft > ANSI spec only, rather than pay ANSI to "get our spec back". > > Hell, my initials are all over the code, just ask. > > Cheers > > Brent the Tolerant and Approachable >

March 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3817 in pharo: make Object >> error: deprecated

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #4 on issue 3817 by ryd...(a)gmail.com: make Object >> error: deprecated http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3817 Yes, Object>>#error: is part of the ANSI protocol. I agree in spirit 100% with what Camillo is saying though. To me, a better approach would be to lead by example. Only 700 uses to fix in Core :)

March 14, 2011