- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] adding nil to sets

by Ralph Boland

Please note the change of topic; adding the ability to add nil to sets won't make sets faster and may well make them slower so has nothing to to with the FasterSets package. Since I am here allow me to state my opinion on the matter. We should not add the ability to add nil to Sets. While I admit I don't know for sure, I believe the number of instances where we need to add nil to a set is rare. For the rare cases in which it is needed we should create a class SetSupportingNils which has two instance variables: containsNil: a boolean set to true iff the SetSupportingNils instance contains nil. set: an instance of Set or one of its subclasses and used to store any object added to the SetSupportingNils instance except of course nil. This means that SetSupportingNils would need to recognize any message that Sets or its subclasses can understand. Any message not understood by SetSupportingNils would be forwarded to its set instance variable. My proposal is not very efficient when adding nil to a set is needed but it requires no modifications to Set or any of its subclasses. That a rarely used class is somewhat inefficient is acceptable. Issue: I suppose we need a BagSupportingNils class too. Are there any other classes we need? Can they be combined into one class? Regards, Ralph Boland

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by Igor Stasenko

2009/7/3 Andres Valloud <avalloud(a)smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>: > Why does #like: have to be disabled? Â Why can't you provide an > implementation for it? > > Every add: has an additional nil check. Â I'd bet that in 99.9999% of the > cases, the nil check is effectively overhead. Â In efficient > implementations of hashed collections, you can tell when you add a few > message sends because it costs about 10% (as I measured for > findElementOrNil: in VW's IdentitySet). > you forgot that #add: in Set has an additional nil check already :) > Besides the additional complexity, is do: actually correct? Â How can a > set includeNil but have a tally of 0? Â I am suspicious that add: should > increase the tally when you add nil (more complexity). > again, 'tally' is an internal state. Not something you can see or meaningfully use outside. > Every removal has an additional nil check. Â I also note that the tally > is not updated either... > well, you can test it, if you think it wrongly implemented. > So. Â I wanted to point out that these 8 refined methods give you: > > * Inflexible implementation. Â If Set changes, then you have to change > GenericSet too. > can't accept such argument. Should i implement it from scratch by subclassing from Object? > * Additional code complexity that people have to deal with. > where? and what you mean by 'deal with'? Did i extended a Set protocol, or something like that? > * But you can add nil to a Set. > > Let's say you write code with GenericSet and use the fact that you can > add nils. Â In the vast majority of Smalltalks (all?), you can't add nil > to a set. Â So, if you want to port code, you have to port GenericSet > (and apply the necessary refinements N times). Â You can't use the > everyday Set that IIRC is specified in the ANSI standard. > I can say similar about situations where you need to use sets where it meaningfully can contain nils. Each time, in every such place, you have to write a workarounds to count nil separately. Now compare this with a class, which provides you this in a simple and usual manner. > Again, is it worth the effort? > > Finally, of course you compare GenericSet to e.g.: HPS, and there's no > complexity at all. Â Nevertheless, I've come to think that "I can do it" > generally doesn't mean "I should do it". > Sure thing. But you will recall my words each time when you will need to deal with nil, as with useful and valuable object, which you can treat in same way as others. > Andres. > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by Andres Valloud

IIRC, the behavior of adding nil to a Set is undefined as per ANSI. In VW, adding nil is a no-op. StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi andres > > thanks for your comments. I thought that in ANSI you can have nil in > Set. > Is it not the case in VW? > > Stef > > > On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Andres Valloud wrote: > > >> Why does #like: have to be disabled? Why can't you provide an >> implementation for it? >> >> Every add: has an additional nil check. I'd bet that in 99.9999% of >> the >> cases, the nil check is effectively overhead. In efficient >> implementations of hashed collections, you can tell when you add a few >> message sends because it costs about 10% (as I measured for >> findElementOrNil: in VW's IdentitySet). >> >> Besides the additional complexity, is do: actually correct? How can a >> set includeNil but have a tally of 0? I am suspicious that add: >> should >> increase the tally when you add nil (more complexity). >> >> Every removal has an additional nil check. I also note that the tally >> is not updated either... >> >> So. I wanted to point out that these 8 refined methods give you: >> >> * Inflexible implementation. If Set changes, then you have to change >> GenericSet too. >> >> * Additional code complexity that people have to deal with. >> >> * But you can add nil to a Set. >> >> Let's say you write code with GenericSet and use the fact that you can >> add nils. In the vast majority of Smalltalks (all?), you can't add >> nil >> to a set. So, if you want to port code, you have to port GenericSet >> (and apply the necessary refinements N times). You can't use the >> everyday Set that IIRC is specified in the ANSI standard. >> >> Again, is it worth the effort? >> >> Finally, of course you compare GenericSet to e.g.: HPS, and there's no >> complexity at all. Nevertheless, I've come to think that "I can do >> it" >> generally doesn't mean "I should do it". >> >> Andres. >> >> >> Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >>> Here the implementation of Set which can include nils. >>> Where do you see so-called 'complexity'? >>> I had to override only 8 methods. >>> >>> >>> 2009/7/3 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>> >>>> 2009/7/3 Andres Valloud <avalloud(a)smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Unlike arrayed collections, hashed collections use a sentinel >>>>> value for >>>>> implementation purposes. Such collections shouldn't be allowed to >>>>> contain the sentinel because doing so introduces unnecessary >>>>> complexity >>>>> for the vast majority of practical applications. It's not worth >>>>> it. If >>>>> adding nil to a set is important, then using self as the sentinel >>>>> could >>>>> do (at the cost of initializing the set to contain self at all >>>>> slots >>>>> when the instance is created, thus duplicating the nilling the VM >>>>> does >>>>> for you). But then, the set shouldn't contain itself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think you are mixing an object's interface with its inner >>>> implementation details. >>>> A Set can include any object in itself, without any discrimination. >>>> But its implemented in such way that it's impossible to include >>>> nil in it. >>>> So, its not worth proving that due to limitation, which comes from >>>> implementation detail, its not worth to have Sets which can include >>>> nils. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > . > >

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

This would be good Once eliot mentioned that we need a new primitive for new which allocate with a passed arg (if I remember well) and some days after tim disappeared from squeak world. On Jul 3, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > Anyone considered fixing Sets to allow a nil as an element? > > 2009/7/3 Ralph Boland <rpboland(a)gmail.com>: >> 2009/7/1 Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no>: >>> I took some time to check this yesterday, my comments on the code >>> itself are >>> basically the same as what Lucas posted in the issue tracker. >>> Works as advertised, but should probably clean out the "gunk" >>> which is >>> unused after it's integrated. >>> >>> Some feedback on possible improvements: >>> - What it does, is basically speed up the adds to the new array in >>> a grow >>> that might happen Why not take this all to the logical conclusion, >>> and >>> instead optimize an addAll: method to be used in grow, that >>> assumes elements >>> are not in set (and themselves are not duplicates)? F.ex. it could >>> also add >>> to tally just once, instead of one increase per element as the >>> noCompareAdd: >>> does. (an add method with no tally add, no = object check, and no >>> growCheck). >> >> >>> >>> - The usual addAll: method can be sped up in a similar way, by >>> performing >>> one grow operation before adding elements if necessary >>> (pessimistically >>> assuming all elements are unique), then use an add method which >>> does not >>> check for grow need at all. (an add method with tally add and = >>> object >>> check, but no growCheck) >>> If desirable, you could also shrink the capacity after adds are >>> done, to >>> match the real amount of new elements. >>> >>> Adding (1 to: 1200000) to a new Set with such an addAll: method >>> took 1/2 to >>> 1/3rd the time of the regular addAll: method, even with the lower >>> grow cost >>> of FasterSets. (Lower gains if Set is presized, and if hash- >>> calculation is >>> bigger part of cost) >>> >> >> I considered this when I created FasterSets. I didn't do this >> because I was >> being conservative. I didn't want FasterSets rejected because it >> did things >> that weren't wanted. I am surprised though at the amount of >> performance >> gain you see. >> As things stand I see no reason for not including >> FasterSets other than the potential of breaking packages that >> subclass >> Set and then override methods crucial to FasterSets. >> My vote is obviously for fixing any packages that get broken rather >> than >> rejecting FasterSets. >> >>> Note: If you want to stay ANSI-compatible, one tricky point in >>> such an >>> optimization is adding all objects in collection up to a nil >>> element, then >>> raising an error. (ie: must produce equivalent results to add: >>> performed of >>> each of collections elements in sequence ) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Henry >>> >>> >> >> I created FasterSets for adding to Squeak and did not consider >> Pharo but >> of course am delighted to have it considered for Pharo. >> You can of course make whatever improvements you want. >> I encourage though that you create a FasterSets2 containing all the >> improvements and leave the original FasterSets alone. I am still >> interested >> in having FasterSets included in Squeak and I do not know if the >> powers that >> be will want the additional improvements or not so I prefer that >> both versions >> exist. >> >> One thing that I have in my code is a method called nastyAddNew: >> which >> adds an element to a set without checking if the element is already >> there. >> If the element is already there of course it gets added again and >> your set >> contains two copies of the element; thus your set is corrupted. >> This problem >> explains the 'nasty' part of the name nastyAddNew. I also have a >> method >> addNew: which reports an error if the object is already in the set. >> nastyAddNew: can be used in set operations such as copy and >> intersection >> making these operations faster and can also be used externally by >> brave users. >> >> If improvements to FasterSets are being contemplated then I suggest >> that >> adding methods addNew: and nastyAddNew: be considered. If >> nastyAddNew: >> is added I see no point in making it private because some users will >> use it anyway. >> I am not necessarily voting for their inclusion because we are then >> giving the user the opportunity to corrupt his data. >> Of course I do use them in my current project. >> thus, for my current project at least, I am a brave user. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ralph Boland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi andres thanks for your comments. I thought that in ANSI you can have nil in Set. Is it not the case in VW? Stef On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Andres Valloud wrote: > Why does #like: have to be disabled? Why can't you provide an > implementation for it? > > Every add: has an additional nil check. I'd bet that in 99.9999% of > the > cases, the nil check is effectively overhead. In efficient > implementations of hashed collections, you can tell when you add a few > message sends because it costs about 10% (as I measured for > findElementOrNil: in VW's IdentitySet). > > Besides the additional complexity, is do: actually correct? How can a > set includeNil but have a tally of 0? I am suspicious that add: > should > increase the tally when you add nil (more complexity). > > Every removal has an additional nil check. I also note that the tally > is not updated either... > > So. I wanted to point out that these 8 refined methods give you: > > * Inflexible implementation. If Set changes, then you have to change > GenericSet too. > > * Additional code complexity that people have to deal with. > > * But you can add nil to a Set. > > Let's say you write code with GenericSet and use the fact that you can > add nils. In the vast majority of Smalltalks (all?), you can't add > nil > to a set. So, if you want to port code, you have to port GenericSet > (and apply the necessary refinements N times). You can't use the > everyday Set that IIRC is specified in the ANSI standard. > > Again, is it worth the effort? > > Finally, of course you compare GenericSet to e.g.: HPS, and there's no > complexity at all. Nevertheless, I've come to think that "I can do > it" > generally doesn't mean "I should do it". > > Andres. > > > Igor Stasenko wrote: >> Here the implementation of Set which can include nils. >> Where do you see so-called 'complexity'? >> I had to override only 8 methods. >> >> >> 2009/7/3 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> 2009/7/3 Andres Valloud <avalloud(a)smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>: >>> >>>> Unlike arrayed collections, hashed collections use a sentinel >>>> value for >>>> implementation purposes. Such collections shouldn't be allowed to >>>> contain the sentinel because doing so introduces unnecessary >>>> complexity >>>> for the vast majority of practical applications. It's not worth >>>> it. If >>>> adding nil to a set is important, then using self as the sentinel >>>> could >>>> do (at the cost of initializing the set to contain self at all >>>> slots >>>> when the instance is created, thus duplicating the nilling the VM >>>> does >>>> for you). But then, the set shouldn't contain itself. >>>> >>>> >>> I think you are mixing an object's interface with its inner >>> implementation details. >>> A Set can include any object in itself, without any discrimination. >>> But its implemented in such way that it's impossible to include >>> nil in it. >>> So, its not worth proving that due to limitation, which comes from >>> implementation detail, its not worth to have Sets which can include >>> nils. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

This would be good Once eliot mentioned that we need a new primitive for new which allocate with a passed arg (if I remember well) and some days after tim disappeared from squeak world. On Jul 3, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > Anyone considered fixing Sets to allow a nil as an element? > > 2009/7/3 Ralph Boland <rpboland(a)gmail.com>: >> 2009/7/1 Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no>: >>> I took some time to check this yesterday, my comments on the code >>> itself are >>> basically the same as what Lucas posted in the issue tracker. >>> Works as advertised, but should probably clean out the "gunk" >>> which is >>> unused after it's integrated. >>> >>> Some feedback on possible improvements: >>> - What it does, is basically speed up the adds to the new array in >>> a grow >>> that might happen Why not take this all to the logical conclusion, >>> and >>> instead optimize an addAll: method to be used in grow, that >>> assumes elements >>> are not in set (and themselves are not duplicates)? F.ex. it could >>> also add >>> to tally just once, instead of one increase per element as the >>> noCompareAdd: >>> does. (an add method with no tally add, no = object check, and no >>> growCheck). >> >> >>> >>> - The usual addAll: method can be sped up in a similar way, by >>> performing >>> one grow operation before adding elements if necessary >>> (pessimistically >>> assuming all elements are unique), then use an add method which >>> does not >>> check for grow need at all. (an add method with tally add and = >>> object >>> check, but no growCheck) >>> If desirable, you could also shrink the capacity after adds are >>> done, to >>> match the real amount of new elements. >>> >>> Adding (1 to: 1200000) to a new Set with such an addAll: method >>> took 1/2 to >>> 1/3rd the time of the regular addAll: method, even with the lower >>> grow cost >>> of FasterSets. (Lower gains if Set is presized, and if hash- >>> calculation is >>> bigger part of cost) >>> >> >> I considered this when I created FasterSets. I didn't do this >> because I was >> being conservative. I didn't want FasterSets rejected because it >> did things >> that weren't wanted. I am surprised though at the amount of >> performance >> gain you see. >> As things stand I see no reason for not including >> FasterSets other than the potential of breaking packages that >> subclass >> Set and then override methods crucial to FasterSets. >> My vote is obviously for fixing any packages that get broken rather >> than >> rejecting FasterSets. >> >>> Note: If you want to stay ANSI-compatible, one tricky point in >>> such an >>> optimization is adding all objects in collection up to a nil >>> element, then >>> raising an error. (ie: must produce equivalent results to add: >>> performed of >>> each of collections elements in sequence ) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Henry >>> >>> >> >> I created FasterSets for adding to Squeak and did not consider >> Pharo but >> of course am delighted to have it considered for Pharo. >> You can of course make whatever improvements you want. >> I encourage though that you create a FasterSets2 containing all the >> improvements and leave the original FasterSets alone. I am still >> interested >> in having FasterSets included in Squeak and I do not know if the >> powers that >> be will want the additional improvements or not so I prefer that >> both versions >> exist. >> >> One thing that I have in my code is a method called nastyAddNew: >> which >> adds an element to a set without checking if the element is already >> there. >> If the element is already there of course it gets added again and >> your set >> contains two copies of the element; thus your set is corrupted. >> This problem >> explains the 'nasty' part of the name nastyAddNew. I also have a >> method >> addNew: which reports an error if the object is already in the set. >> nastyAddNew: can be used in set operations such as copy and >> intersection >> making these operations faster and can also be used externally by >> brave users. >> >> If improvements to FasterSets are being contemplated then I suggest >> that >> adding methods addNew: and nastyAddNew: be considered. If >> nastyAddNew: >> is added I see no point in making it private because some users will >> use it anyway. >> I am not necessarily voting for their inclusion because we are then >> giving the user the opportunity to corrupt his data. >> Of course I do use them in my current project. >> thus, for my current project at least, I am a brave user. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ralph Boland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] What will be the standard browser in Pharo?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

PakcageInfo is slow. I'm starting to work on a replacement. On Jul 3, 2009, at 12:45 AM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > Stef, > > My initial reaction is to strongly suggest doing something to get > the additional speed offered by the choice below, but I need to > either get some hard data by profiling some typical operations, or > at least work with it under real conditions. I am curious what > others who have found Pharo to be sluggish find with it. > > Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr > ] On Behalf Of StÃ©phane Ducasse > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:45 PM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What will be the standard browser in > Pharo? > > Choose OB but not the version with package when you change from > system browser to other by clicking ong the left top bottom of a > window Stef > > On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > >> Stef, >> >> Is there a way to get the fast browser, or an image with it loaded? >> >> Bill >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr >> ] On Behalf Of StÃ©phane Ducasse >> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:30 PM >> To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What will be the standard browser in >> Pharo? >> >> Hi oscar >> >> Ideally we would love to have a fast browser with package support: >> - dual browser >> - class extensions >> - traits >> - refactoring >> - icons >> >> Now apparently OBEnhancements was a bit dirty and this is not clear >> what colin will integrate or not. >> Lukas has a OB version which is fast but it does not have >> - dual browser >> - class extensions >> - traits >> - icons >> So david and lukas should talk a bit more and we could get the best >> of >> the worlds. >> Saturday we should have a discussion. Having a fast but powerful >> browser is important and right now if the browser does not support >> trait then we should remove traits from the image. >> Similarly we cannot work well without class extension support and >> other package related functionality. >> Stef >> >> >> >> On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:07 PM, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I am trying to port Squeak by Example to Pharo by Example. I am a >>> bit confused about what is suppose dto be the standard browser now. >>> I thought it was the OB Package Browser, but Damien Cassou just gave >>> me a new image where the browser is an OB System Browser >>> (Categories, >>> not packages). I cannot even see any more how to switch between the >>> two. >>> >>> Can someone enlighten me? (Then I can explain it in the book.) >>> >>> - on >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by Andres Valloud

Why does #like: have to be disabled? Why can't you provide an implementation for it? Every add: has an additional nil check. I'd bet that in 99.9999% of the cases, the nil check is effectively overhead. In efficient implementations of hashed collections, you can tell when you add a few message sends because it costs about 10% (as I measured for findElementOrNil: in VW's IdentitySet). Besides the additional complexity, is do: actually correct? How can a set includeNil but have a tally of 0? I am suspicious that add: should increase the tally when you add nil (more complexity). Every removal has an additional nil check. I also note that the tally is not updated either... So. I wanted to point out that these 8 refined methods give you: * Inflexible implementation. If Set changes, then you have to change GenericSet too. * Additional code complexity that people have to deal with. * But you can add nil to a Set. Let's say you write code with GenericSet and use the fact that you can add nils. In the vast majority of Smalltalks (all?), you can't add nil to a set. So, if you want to port code, you have to port GenericSet (and apply the necessary refinements N times). You can't use the everyday Set that IIRC is specified in the ANSI standard. Again, is it worth the effort? Finally, of course you compare GenericSet to e.g.: HPS, and there's no complexity at all. Nevertheless, I've come to think that "I can do it" generally doesn't mean "I should do it". Andres. Igor Stasenko wrote: > Here the implementation of Set which can include nils. > Where do you see so-called 'complexity'? > I had to override only 8 methods. > > > 2009/7/3 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > >> 2009/7/3 Andres Valloud <avalloud(a)smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>: >> >>> Unlike arrayed collections, hashed collections use a sentinel value for >>> implementation purposes. Such collections shouldn't be allowed to >>> contain the sentinel because doing so introduces unnecessary complexity >>> for the vast majority of practical applications. It's not worth it. If >>> adding nil to a set is important, then using self as the sentinel could >>> do (at the cost of initializing the set to contain self at all slots >>> when the instance is created, thus duplicating the nilling the VM does >>> for you). But then, the set shouldn't contain itself. >>> >>> >> I think you are mixing an object's interface with its inner >> implementation details. >> A Set can include any object in itself, without any discrimination. >> But its implemented in such way that it's impossible to include nil in it. >> So, its not worth proving that due to limitation, which comes from >> implementation detail, its not worth to have Sets which can include >> nils. >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] FasterSets improvements

by Igor Stasenko

Here the implementation of Set which can include nils. Where do you see so-called 'complexity'? I had to override only 8 methods. 2009/7/3 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > 2009/7/3 Andres Valloud <avalloud(a)smalltalk.comcastbiz.net>: >> Unlike arrayed collections, hashed collections use a sentinel value for >> implementation purposes. Â Such collections shouldn't be allowed to >> contain the sentinel because doing so introduces unnecessary complexity >> for the vast majority of practical applications. Â It's not worth it. Â If >> adding nil to a set is important, then using self as the sentinel could >> do (at the cost of initializing the set to contain self at all slots >> when the instance is created, thus duplicating the nilling the VM does >> for you). Â But then, the set shouldn't contain itself. >> > > I think you are mixing an object's interface with its inner > implementation details. > A Set can include any object in itself, without any discrimination. > But its implemented in such way that it's impossible to include nil in it. > So, its not worth proving that due to limitation, which comes from > implementation detail, its not worth to have Sets which can include > nils. > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

July 3, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] What will be the standard browser in Pharo?

by Lukas Renggli

> Is there a way to get the fast browser, or an image with it loaded? You use a Pharo-Core image and the script published here (you might want to comments the parts you don't need, e.g. Seaside, Magirtte, Pier): http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ImageBuildScripts Lukas 2009/7/2 Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu>: > Stef, > > Is there a way to get the fast browser, or an image with it loaded? > > Bill > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of StÃ©phane Ducasse > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:30 PM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What will be the standard browser in Pharo? > > Hi oscar > > Ideally we would love to have a fast browser with package support: > Â Â Â Â - dual browser > Â Â Â Â - class extensions > Â Â Â Â - traits > Â Â Â Â - refactoring > Â Â Â Â - icons > > Now apparently OBEnhancements was a bit dirty and this is not clear what colin will integrate or not. > Lukas has a OB version which is fast but it does not have > Â Â Â Â - dual browser > Â Â Â Â - class extensions > Â Â Â Â - traits > Â Â Â Â - icons > So david and lukas should talk a bit more and we could get the best of the worlds. > Saturday we should have a discussion. Having a fast but powerful browser is important and right now if the browser does not support trait then we should remove traits from the image. > Similarly we cannot work well without class extension support and other package related functionality. > Stef > > > > On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:07 PM, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote: > >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> I am trying to port Squeak by Example to Pharo by Example. Â I am a bit >> confused about what is suppose dto be the standard browser now. Â I >> thought it was the OB Package Browser, but Damien Cassou just gave me >> a new image where the browser is an OB System Browser (Categories, not >> packages). Â I cannot even see any more how to switch between the two. >> >> Can someone enlighten me? Â (Then I can explain it in the book.) >> >> - on >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

July 3, 2009