- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] little fix for Slice

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

hi all Does any of you want to help? with a little exercise? It would be nice to help the user to provide coherent slice name I suggest SLICE-number-title title with only alphanumberical-characters any taker? because this would be cool to get another step forward http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2478 Stef

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by nullPointer

But then which is the equivalence to #and:and:and: when I have many conditions? Perhaps I will say a stupidity... but , not is valid the implementation of #&& and #|| messages instead of #and:... #or: .....? ( aCondition1 && aCondition2 && aCondition3 ) ifTrue: [ <something> ] Regards -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/and-and-and-deprecated-on-1-1-why-tp2230786p2231486.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Using Pier to produce web sites

by GermÃ¡n Arduino

Yes, I agree. I like PIer and try to use it, but the lack of explanations about how to do even simple things is a serious drawback. May be I'm not clever enough, but figure out how to to somethings take a lot of time. Cheers. 2010/5/26 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > Thanks! > Pier is often a bit too arcane to me :) > > >> Hi Fernando: >> >> Some links that may be useful to you: >> >> - http://chapados.org/tutorials/pier-design-tutorial >> - http://stblog.seasidehosting.st/seaside/pier/seccionpier (in Spanish) >> >> But you are right, Pier need desesperately good tutorials/howtos/documentation. >> >> Cheers. >> >> >> 2010/5/25 Geert Claes <geert.wl.claes(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>> Maybe also post on the Pier mailing list >>> http://forum.world.st/Magritte-Pier-and-Related-Tools-f115649.html >>> (https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki) >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Using-Pier-to-produce-web-sites-tp2229712p2229969.html >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

tx! I found the traits bug :) Stef On May 26, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >> Not that I disagree with Stef in any way at all, but can you think of >> reasons - other than the historical ones - why #value:value:value: and >> friends are to be preferred over #valueWithArguments: ? > > They serve different purpose: > > - #valueWithArguments: is useful only if you have a collection of > arguments. If you have individual arguments you have to create a > collection first. > > - #value:value:value: is useful only if you have individual arguments. > If you have a collection of arguments you have to take them apart > first. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by Lukas Renggli

> Not that I disagree with Stef in any way at all, but can you think of > reasons - other than the historical ones - why #value:value:value: and > friends are to be preferred over #valueWithArguments: ? They serve different purpose: - #valueWithArguments: is useful only if you have a collection of arguments. If you have individual arguments you have to create a collection first. - #value:value:value: is useful only if you have individual arguments. If you have a collection of arguments you have to take them apart first. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by Peter Hugosson-Miller

Thanks, Lucas! I like nice clear concise lists of logical reasons like this :-) Not that I disagree with Stef in any way at all, but can you think of reasons - other than the historical ones - why #value:value:value: and friends are to be preferred over #valueWithArguments: ? -- Cheers, Peter On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Lukas Renggli <renggli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one > > of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to > > C, which is very fast. The Â»new compiler optimizeÂ« both, anyway. > > - The "New Compiler" does not yet work. > > - The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly. > > - The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing > how it is implemented. > > - There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c > ] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the > conditions have side-effects. > > - The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have > seen that numerous times. > > - The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code. > > - #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view. > > - And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the > rest of the world. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

thanks butcher :) You worked too much with philippe :))))) Stef On May 26, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >> not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one >> of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to >> C, which is very fast. The Â»new compiler optimizeÂ« both, anyway. > > - The "New Compiler" does not yet work. > > - The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly. > > - The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing > how it is implemented. > > - There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c > ] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the > conditions have side-effects. > > - The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have > seen that numerous times. > > - The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code. > > - #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view. > > - And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the > rest of the world. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by Lukas Renggli

> not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one > of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to > C, which is very fast. The Â»new compiler optimizeÂ« both, anyway. - The "New Compiler" does not yet work. - The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly. - The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing how it is implemented. - There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c ] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the conditions have side-effects. - The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have seen that numerous times. - The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code. - #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view. - And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the rest of the world. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Using Pier to produce web sites

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Thanks! Pier is often a bit too arcane to me :) > Hi Fernando: > > Some links that may be useful to you: > > - http://chapados.org/tutorials/pier-design-tutorial > - http://stblog.seasidehosting.st/seaside/pier/seccionpier (in Spanish) > > But you are right, Pier need desesperately good tutorials/howtos/documentation. > > Cheers. > > > 2010/5/25 Geert Claes <geert.wl.claes(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Maybe also post on the Pier mailing list >> http://forum.world.st/Magritte-Pier-and-Related-Tools-f115649.html >> (https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki) >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Using-Pier-to-produce-web-sites-tp2229712p2229969.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 26, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] #and:and:and: deprecated on 1.1, why?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On May 26, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Richard Durr wrote: > Thanks for the response. I don't have a "real" argument â I wanted to > point out my bewilderment: > > Why is #value:value: and the like in the ansi protocol, when > #valueWithArguments: would be enough in any case? Of cause the answer > is semantically clarity, readability, expressiveness and convenience. > Doing something because it is "optimized by the compiler" instead of > choosing a less optimized, but clearer and more expressive way seems > not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one > of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to > C, which is very fast. The Â»new compiler optimizeÂ« both, anyway. I understand now I think that and:and:and: is not nice nor necessary, especially since each time a message is optimized it means a lot more work for the decompiler and friends. It is different to value:value: since this is more historical. Now the main reason is to have a nice and clean core. Booleans do not really need and:and:and:. Stef > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse > <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> hi richard >> >>> WTF?! >> >> If you have a real argument we are really open to discussion. >> >>> These are the only reasons? >> I think that they are sufficient but again we are not saying that we know everything and that any solutions could not >> be rollback. We are doing and learning. >> Now having clean, lean and fast core classes are important. >> >> Because we could have and:or: or:and: and:and:or: and a couple of others in that case. >> >>> Why do we have #value:value:value: then? >> >> Because this is part of block protocol in the ANSI and because you cannot do it >> only with value: >> >> >>>> - and: is optimized by the compiler >>> We could use C, where "everything" is optimized by the compiler. >> >> I think that your point is out of scope but if you want you can use C. >> >> Stef >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 26, 2010