- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Adding build info into pharo runtime

by Guillermo Polito

Hi all, as asked by Torsten, I spent some time adding build info into the pharo runtime. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20321/Add-build-number-to-SystemVersion https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/212 Tests are green https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2… The built image can be tested from here: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2… The build info is also shown in the About dialog. We show the same than what is found in built pharo artifacts in the file server. [image: Inline image 2] Please review or go on and propose a change based on that. Remember that I'm leaving on vacations tomorrow. Hope this is useful, Guille -- Guille Polito Research Engineer French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr* <http://www.cnrs.fr> *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] 19609 FileReference>>base should be before last separator

by Alistair Grant

Hi Stef, On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 05:08:40PM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > I do not know but I imagine that I added basenameWithoutExtension because > I found the name much much clearer. I would have never guessed that > base is the basename without the extension. > > Stef Thanks for the clarification. Although #base isn't the name without the extension, it is the portion of the name up to the first extension delimiter (for names with a single extension delimiter the two will of course be the same, but for names with multiple extension delimiters they will be different). In that case, assuming no one else comes up with additional information, I would argue that the issue should be closed (rejected), and Michael should change his code to use #basenameWithoutExtension instead of #base. It would be nice to improve the comments in the code - I'll add it to my list. :-) Cheers, Alistair > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I've just taken a look at issue 19609 FileReference>>base should be > > before last separator and wonder whether it is a correct interpretation > > of the original intentions. > > > > The original author of the issue, Michael, seems to feel that > > FileReferene>>base and FileReference>>basenameWithoutExtension are the > > same. > > > > My reading of the comments is that they perform a different function, > > i.e.: > > > > > > '/a/b/c.d.e' asFileReference base. "c" > > '/a/b/c.d.e' asFileReference basenameWithoutExtension. "c.d" > > > > > > are both the expected values, i.e.: > > > > - #base answers the name up to the first extensionDelimiter. > > - #basenameWithoutExtension answers the name without what is typically > > considered the file extension (the bit after the last > > extensionDelimiter). > > > > Not shown above, but: > > > > - #basename answers the entire filename, i.e. "c.d.e". > > > > > > Does anyone know the history of these methods? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Alistair > > >

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Initial Feedback on Pharo 7 contribution process

by Alistair Grant

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:54:57AM +0200, Pavel Krivanek wrote: > > > 2017-08-17 10:44 GMT+02:00 Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de>: > > Hi, > > even when contributing to Pharo 7.0 is still very very cumbersome I was > able > to sort out most of the problems and contribute already a few smaller > things. > > Unfortunately there is not much communication on what is currently in the > pipe > or planned on easing the process - which can easily lead to the impression > that we do not really move or slow us down. > > I know step by step it goes and at least we have again the build process > rolling > https://pharoweekly.wordpress.com/2017/08/16/pharo-70-is- > starting-to-roll-for-real/ > > Nonetheless one of my PRs was already integrated and the integration of my > WebBrowser > package is still in the pipe (https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/ > 193) > > The descriptions from Guille helped me - but there are still things I need > answers to: > > 1. Will or is it still possible to automatically update" an image in Pharo > 7 > or in the future? > The World menu entry "System" -> "System update" has been removed? > > Is this temporary of will it return once we know how it could be done > again? > > > You can update your image in Iceberg by switching to the updated #development > branch and then to reload all packages. In most cases it will probably work > fine but it does not know the right packages loading order, does not know > changes in the packages structure etc. > And some updates cannot be done at all (e.g. https://github.com/pharo-project/ > pharo/pull/205). So you can expect troubles. > With Cargo we can get smoother updating process but trying to maintain it now > would be IMHO waste of resources. > > -- Pavel If the order is important... Iceberg models the commits, so it should be possible to start at the head and trace back to the commit used to build the image. The resulting list of commits could then be loaded in the correct order. (I don't know if this would help in the case of PR #205) Just to add a positive note to the conversation: I'm not very knowledgable about git, but it seems to be the best source control tool by far (based on my limited experience), and I've seen steady improvement in Iceberg since Esteban indicated that it would be the basis of source control for Pharo. What I've seen so far makes me think that we are going down a good path, even if it is taking longer we would like and is causing some pain along the way. Cheers, Alistair

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Issue that may break Epicea

by Guillermo Polito

Ahh!! Yes, there is a test that fails from time to time, but nothing to do with that PR I think. Actually, Martin if you have some time to check, there is a cyclothymic test that fails randomly on the CI. Maybe the test needs to be more robust. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I do not know but tests broke when I integrated the changes. > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Guillermo Polito < > guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why would it break epicea? >> >> There is no major change in API. Only the method #createDirectory is >> removed, but the only users are internal to the library. In my latest image >> there are no Epicea users of it. >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Stephane Ducasse < >> stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi martin >>> >>> >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18084/FileReference-EnsureCreateFile >>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/133 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Guille Polito >> >> >> Research Engineer >> >> French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr* >> <http://www.cnrs.fr> >> >> >> >> *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> >> >> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 <+33%206%2052%2070%2066%2013> >> > > -- Guille Polito Research Engineer French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr* <http://www.cnrs.fr> *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] 19609 FileReference>>base should be before last separator

by Stephane Ducasse

I do not know but I imagine that I added basenameWithoutExtension because I found the name much much clearer. I would have never guessed that base is the basename without the extension. Stef On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've just taken a look at issue 19609 FileReference>>base should be > before last separator and wonder whether it is a correct interpretation > of the original intentions. > > The original author of the issue, Michael, seems to feel that > FileReferene>>base and FileReference>>basenameWithoutExtension are the > same. > > My reading of the comments is that they perform a different function, > i.e.: > > > '/a/b/c.d.e' asFileReference base. "c" > '/a/b/c.d.e' asFileReference basenameWithoutExtension. "c.d" > > > are both the expected values, i.e.: > > - #base answers the name up to the first extensionDelimiter. > - #basenameWithoutExtension answers the name without what is typically > considered the file extension (the bit after the last > extensionDelimiter). > > Not shown above, but: > > - #basename answers the entire filename, i.e. "c.d.e". > > > Does anyone know the history of these methods? > > > Cheers, > Alistair >

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Issue that may break Epicea

by Stephane Ducasse

I do not know but tests broke when I integrated the changes. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Guillermo Polito < guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why would it break epicea? > > There is no major change in API. Only the method #createDirectory is > removed, but the only users are internal to the library. In my latest image > there are no Epicea users of it. > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi martin >> >> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18084/FileReference-EnsureCreateFile >> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/133 >> >> > > > -- > > > > Guille Polito > > > Research Engineer > > French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr* > <http://www.cnrs.fr> > > > > *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> > > *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 <+33%206%2052%2070%2066%2013> >

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default

by Dimitris Chloupis

I remember my 10 year self struggling learning to code basic back in 1988 on an Amstrad CPC 6128 with Locomotive Basic that required entering line numbers before the code statement. IDEs , code editors and what else were unheard of for me at least and even if they did exist would be nowhere near the budget of a 10 year old. Nowdays we have a ton of options, easy access to it, its free , its open source, insanely powerful and even documented. You can even find Youtube tutorials if too lazy to read text and also a ton of examples and snippets to get you started. I agree 1000% with your argument that "batteries included" version is super important, its one of the major reason why Python exploded in popularity. But yeah I turn to Hulk every time I hear these dreaded 3 words "too many options". I am willing to endure this hell of too many options and even pray it gets much much worse. But then it may be just me :) On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:50 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:25 PM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> hi Dimitris (good to see you around ;) ), >> >> > Not going anywhere , just taking a break from Pharo :) > > >> thing isâ¦ we want to improve our tools. >> >> great > > >> And improve tools sometime means to add stuff (Iâm not very happy with it >> either, I would like to remove more than what I add, but it is like that). >> For example, if we want to have good class comments, we need some markup >> format, then the best thing we have is pillar and then we need a parser and >> then the easiest to use thing we have is petit parser. >> > > Yeah.. about that. See the issue is exactly what you just mentioned , > improvement. Sometimes improving makes things worse. Markdown class > comments is an excellent example of this. You do the logical thing and > offer markdown for class comments , you make the image more complex by > adding a feature the average user would need but you greatly improve your > ability for class comments. > > But your average user does not even bother adding one line comment on the > main class what are the chances that will use markdown ? I am willing to > bet big money on "close to zero chance". Hence you end up making things > actually worse by adding code that your user wont use and instead > increasing the complexity and his motivation to explore and fall in love > with your project. > > >> Which means we will need an image that have a core PetitParser and a >> basic Pillarâ¦ so we can have proper documentation. Of course, maybe the >> full pillar is too much (as it is the full petit parser, probably) so we >> need to think carefully what we put inside and what we left outside. Same >> is with everything: why to put athens, or glamour, or X, Y, Z. (things that >> few people use, but are very important for our echosystem in general). >> > > Well if few people use them, how they are important to your ecosystem ? If > you talking about dependencies then that means the ecosystem is deeply > flawed and we go back to the modularity question. I fail to see how Athens > is important to the Pharo ecosystem , apart from Roassal people I have not > seen anyone else using it consistently. > > If you were talking about the UFFI I would agree 100% but I cannot agree > by any means that Athens is so important for Pharo that must be included in > the image. By the way I am a graphics guy so biased in favour of Athens. > > >> >> > Now, along with this âbloatingâ movements, that adds more elements to the >> system and because of that increases essential complexity, we are working >> on the other direction: bootstrapping and modularising Pharo so in the near >> future (it should be done for P7 or as late to P8) you will be able to >> create an image with the elements you want. >> >> Another thing we need to work on (but thatâs in part documentation and in >> part modifications to be done) we need to work on overall >> availability/comprehensibility of the system. >> >> Soâ¦ we need to continue adding things, in order to continue improving. We >> also need to remove a lot of things that are duplicated or obsolete. >> Pharo will always be âthe deliverable we makeâ (including all things we >> officially support as âpart of itâ)â¦ but we are making possible that >> everybody can also do âthe Pharo they wantâ. >> > > I can understand having a Parser in image to parse Pharo syntax and other > things, big thumbs up for that I think that would justify the inclusion for > the average user. Parsing and dealing with text is a big deal afterall. > > I am ok with offering a minimal image and not being the default one. As > long it exists I am happy. >

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default

by Dimitris Chloupis

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:25 PM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hi Dimitris (good to see you around ;) ), > > Not going anywhere , just taking a break from Pharo :) > thing isâ¦ we want to improve our tools. > > great > And improve tools sometime means to add stuff (Iâm not very happy with it > either, I would like to remove more than what I add, but it is like that). > For example, if we want to have good class comments, we need some markup > format, then the best thing we have is pillar and then we need a parser and > then the easiest to use thing we have is petit parser. > Yeah.. about that. See the issue is exactly what you just mentioned , improvement. Sometimes improving makes things worse. Markdown class comments is an excellent example of this. You do the logical thing and offer markdown for class comments , you make the image more complex by adding a feature the average user would need but you greatly improve your ability for class comments. But your average user does not even bother adding one line comment on the main class what are the chances that will use markdown ? I am willing to bet big money on "close to zero chance". Hence you end up making things actually worse by adding code that your user wont use and instead increasing the complexity and his motivation to explore and fall in love with your project. > Which means we will need an image that have a core PetitParser and a basic > Pillarâ¦ so we can have proper documentation. Of course, maybe the full > pillar is too much (as it is the full petit parser, probably) so we need to > think carefully what we put inside and what we left outside. Same is with > everything: why to put athens, or glamour, or X, Y, Z. (things that few > people use, but are very important for our echosystem in general). > Well if few people use them, how they are important to your ecosystem ? If you talking about dependencies then that means the ecosystem is deeply flawed and we go back to the modularity question. I fail to see how Athens is important to the Pharo ecosystem , apart from Roassal people I have not seen anyone else using it consistently. If you were talking about the UFFI I would agree 100% but I cannot agree by any means that Athens is so important for Pharo that must be included in the image. By the way I am a graphics guy so biased in favour of Athens. > > Now, along with this âbloatingâ movements, that adds more elements to the > system and because of that increases essential complexity, we are working > on the other direction: bootstrapping and modularising Pharo so in the near > future (it should be done for P7 or as late to P8) you will be able to > create an image with the elements you want. > > Another thing we need to work on (but thatâs in part documentation and in > part modifications to be done) we need to work on overall > availability/comprehensibility of the system. > > Soâ¦ we need to continue adding things, in order to continue improving. We > also need to remove a lot of things that are duplicated or obsolete. > Pharo will always be âthe deliverable we makeâ (including all things we > officially support as âpart of itâ)â¦ but we are making possible that > everybody can also do âthe Pharo they wantâ. > I can understand having a Parser in image to parse Pharo syntax and other things, big thumbs up for that I think that would justify the inclusion for the average user. Parsing and dealing with text is a big deal afterall. I am ok with offering a minimal image and not being the default one. As long it exists I am happy.

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default

by phil＠highoctane.be

Got an architecture discussion with a client this morning and a lot of pain they face is that there are too many choices out there on some platforms. A batteries included distro with one good framework doing its thing nicely if really a good thing to have. It reduces the amount of choice and thus allows to focus on the business problem instead of diving into endless technical discussions. Phil On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2017, at 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > hi Dimitris (good to see you around ;) ), > > thing isâ¦ we want to improve our tools. > > And improve tools sometime means to add stuff (Iâm not very happy with it > either, I would like to remove more than what I add, but it is like that). > For example, if we want to have good class comments, we need some markup > format, then the best thing we have is pillar and then we need a parser and > then the easiest to use thing we have is petit parser. > > Which means we will need an image that have a core PetitParser and a basic > Pillarâ¦ so we can have proper documentation. Of course, maybe the full > pillar is too much (as it is the full petit parser, probably) so we need to > think carefully what we put inside and what we left outside. Same is with > everything: why to put athens, or glamour, or X, Y, Z. (things that few > people use, but are very important for our echosystem in general). > > > a corollary of this is that, if we think well and we include the correct > addition, then itâs exponential (having a real parser inside can easy a lot > of developments, and can also lead to better tools). > > > Now, along with this âbloatingâ movements, that adds more elements to the > system and because of that increases essential complexity, we are working > on the other direction: bootstrapping and modularising Pharo so in the near > future (it should be done for P7 or as late to P8) you will be able to > create an image with the elements you want. > > Another thing we need to work on (but thatâs in part documentation and in > part modifications to be done) we need to work on overall > availability/comprehensibility of the system. > > Soâ¦ we need to continue adding things, in order to continue improving. We > also need to remove a lot of things that are duplicated or obsolete. > Pharo will always be âthe deliverable we makeâ (including all things we > officially support as âpart of itâ)â¦ but we are making possible that > everybody can also do âthe Pharo they wantâ. > > cheers, > Esteban > > On 17 Aug 2017, at 14:01, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Is it really necessary ? > > I am more a modular guy , I would love to get an image that 0.1% the size > of the current one and offer me a convenient package manager to install the > tools I like. > > I have used Pillar ALOT probably more than any other Pharo library because > I was doing Pharo documentation stuff. > I have even used Pillar to build my website , yeah I know that is not the > pupose of Pillar but with some modification and the addition of a tool I > created (Octopus) it help me generate some portion of the website via > mustache. > > Do I want Pillar in ? Nope > > Already the System Browser looks like a monster ready to eat you alive, I > think we need to make the image a lot less threatening especially for > newcomers. There is such thing as too much info. > > Pillar is in the Package Browser you just click and install it if you dont > mind the wait because its a rather big install. > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Even though I've initiated this discussion I kind of stopped reading >> because everyone started discussing completely unrelated things... >> >> The initial point was.... "we are using github/gitlab more and more, lets >> leverage it more" >> >> New, lets separate the concepts at play here... >> >> "Pillar - document model" - the workhorse of pillar and (imho) the most >> important part of it, and also the part I am interested in being included. >> Because then I can generate the document directly without using any >> syntax... >> >> "Pillar - syntax" - we can have endless arguments whether the syntax is >> good or bad, and imho that should be a separate discussion unrelated to the >> Pillar inclusion >> >> "Markdown for unrelated usecases" - whether you can or cannot write your >> thesis in markdown is really irelevant here >> >> "Markdown - export" - there will always be different variants and >> extensions for Markdown, simply because the sites using markdown offer >> different capabilities. >> >> Therefore the first focus should be on the most impact/effort ratio, >> which is CommonMark (basically the only meaningful Markdown specification), >> and GFM (which is a CommonMark with added tables and strikethrough). >> >> Adding support for more extensive export support, whether code related >> (e.g. GitLab), or code unrelated (writing a thesis) should be a future >> discussion, it is not relevant or too effortful right now. >> >> "Markdown - import" - I would love to be able to write markdown and have >> it imported into the Pillar document model, however that is imho moot point >> right now, as it can always be added later >> >> >> To summarize: >> >> * primary >> * include pillar document model >> * include pillar syntax (as an import format) >> * add CommonMark+GFM export >> * secondary >> * discuss Pillar syntax if needed (in a _new_ thread) >> * discuss Markdown parser / importing CommonMark into Pillar model >> * any other discussion not pertinent here should go elsewhere >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 06:05:29PM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > In general (you all know me), I have the policy of âdo not go alien >> just becauseâ which means we do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time >> and we need to stick with what is already there and known (I have pushed >> many changes in pharo following this direction, iceberg being just the >> latest), but we need to keep also the basis of what we are (which means: >> when we need to stay alien, we need to embrace it too). >> > >> > Said that: while I would LOVE to have a markdown compatible format, the >> amount of effort put on pillar to make it *what we need* and is a format >> used not just for doing README.md but to write books, etc., then replacing >> it would be complicated. >> > >> > butâ¦ I think we can do pillar syntax more âmarkdown alikeâ (and we can >> even have a stripped-pillar with would be even more like md), I would >> salute such change. >> > >> > cheers, >> > Esteban >> > >> > >> > > On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:23, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com <mailto: >> btc(a)openinworld.com>> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo < >> emaringolo(a)gmail.com <mailto:emaringolo@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> You hit several birds with one single mail. >> > >> >> > >> 2017-08-14 13:34 GMT-03:00 Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto: >> tim(a)testit.works>>: >> > >> > Jimmie et al. nicely reasoned arguments - and Doru's point about >> controlling >> > >> > the syntax is an interesting one that I hadnât thought about. >> > >> > >> > >> > Personally, I find having too many similar syntaxâs confusing - >> contributing >> > >> > to things is hard enough - having to remember that its !! Instead >> of ## and >> > >> > ââ instead of ** is just frustrating for me. >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> Not only for docs, most platforms like Slack/Discord share the >> syntax, >> > >> so now I'm getting "muscle memory" when typing literals using the >> > >> backtick (`) character, quoting with > or pasting snippets using ``` >> > >> >> > >> +1. So I've posted this before... >> > >> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy- >> letter-iii-let-me-go-back/ <https://www.joelonsoftware. >> com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/> >> > >> describing that "The only strategy in getting people to switch to >> your product is to eliminate barriers" >> > >> >> > >> But more... the best reason for Pillar to support a Markdown-ish >> syntax, is that when we scratch-our-own-itch (nominally for Pillar) to >> build the best damn markup-editor ever (because we can!) - if this happened >> to support Markdown it can draw in Markdown-non-Pharo users (because its >> the best editor ever!). Those users later want to make modifications, and >> now have a *reason* to learn Pharo... ahHaA! now you see the cunning plan... >> > >> >> > >> So don't just promote to people "hey come and play with this cool >> toy of ours (Pharo)." >> > >> Instead give them a toy they *already-want* (Markdown editor) and >> then when they want to change the batteries, they *need* to use our special >> screwdriver (Pharo). >> > > >> > > +1! >> > > >> > >> >> > >> cheers -ben >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Sure, maybe we were first with Pillar, but for me, lots of >> programming is in >> > >> > other languages, and I use Smalltalk where I can, and a hybrid of >> multiple >> > >> > languages and projects is often the reality - so a lowest common >> denominator >> > >> > of Markdown is just easier. The fact that we are quite close to >> what our >> > >> > colleagues in other languages use (regardless of what Python has >> chosen), is >> > >> > quite interesting. >> > >> >> > >> This helps building "bridges" with other communities. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> The language as a means of exchange is always the lowest common >> denominator. >> > >> As long as it's "efficient enough" then I vote to use what other >> > >> communities use. >> > >> >> > >> > That said, if the community wants to stick to its gunâs thats fine >> - I will >> > >> > probably still investigate how to use Commonmark for myself, and >> will still >> > >> > contribute to Pillar docs where I can (and curse history) - but I >> think we >> > >> > are long better off trying to join emerging standards where we can >> > >> > particularly if they arenât our core language thing. And it just >> makes it >> > >> > less frictionless for ourselves and newcomers. >> > >> >> > >> The "Not Invented Here" syndrome is strong among Smalltalkers, it's >> > >> important to be aware of this bias and think more than once whether >> > >> eating our own dogfood adds value to the core of what Pharo brings. >> > >> >> > >> I think we missed some good years fighting with our own SCM and in >> the >> > >> end git (or any other file based SCM) prevailed, even when it has >> > >> limitations. >> > >> >> > >> Pareto (80-20) for everything non-core business should be a guide. >> > >> >> > >> > Of course, if we were to move, we would need to translate a lot of >> quality >> > >> > docs to a new format - but I would be up for contributing to that >> if that >> > >> > was a deciding factor. >> > >> >> > >> There are some Markdown exporters AFAIK, or it could be written. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Esteban A. Maringolo >> > >> >> > >

Aug. 17, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Can we have subclasses of Process?

by henry

EventualProcess is in eventual_test [*], as example. Do not run RefsTest>>#testFailedArithmaticwithEventualArgument or will segfault vm. - HH [*] - http://www.squeaksource.com/TurquoiseTesting/eventual_test-hh.4.mcz On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:33, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think there is no technical limitation for it, AFAIK, the VM never checks the class of a process. I also proposed something like that in this paper: > > http://guillep.github.io/files/publications/Poli14b-IWST-GlobalStateClassif… > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've used subclasses of process for the debugger stuff without problems. >> Max >> >> On 17 August 2017 at 14:05:14, Denis Kudriashov (dionisiydk(a)gmail.com) wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> Is it allowed to subclass Process? I remember that there were some problems with it but I could not find any information. >>> >>> Generally I think about system processes which can be represented by concrete subclasses. For example explicit UIProcess can be used to remove many #isUIProcess conditions from system. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Denis > > -- > > Guille Polito > > Research Engineer > > French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr > > Web: http://guillep.github.io > > Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13

Aug. 17, 2017