- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Reflecting on data (literal) object syntax

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Norbert, > On Jul 1, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > >>> Am 30.06.2017 um 21:14 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>> But what is DataFrame? >> >> the new collection done by alesnedr from Lviv. It is really nice but >> does not solve the problem of the compact syntax. >> >>>> >>>> STON fromString: 'Point[10,20]' >>>> >>> Same goes for JSON. >>> >>>> We were brainstorming with marcus and we could have a first nice extension: >>>> >>>> { 'x' -> 10 .'y' -> 20 } asObjectOf: #Point. >>>>>>> 10@20 >>>> >>>> Now in addition I think that there is a value in having an object >>>> literal syntax. >>>> >>>> I pasted the old mail of igor on object literals because I like the >>>> idea since it does not add any change in the parser. >>>> Do you remember what were the problem raised by this solution (beside >>>> the fact that it had too many # and the order was like in ston not >>>> explicit). >>>> >>>> I would love to have another pass on the idea of Igor. >>> >>> What I don't like about it is that the object literal exposes the internal implementation of the object. Everything is based on index. So it could suffer the same problem as fuel. When you don't have the exact same code the deserialization fails. >> >> Indeed this is why >> { 'x' -> 10 .'y' -> 20 } asObjectOf: #Point. >> could be more robust. >> We could extend the object literal syntax to use association for non >> collection. >> > I think it is more robust and more explicit. I do not know what are the semantics of detecting something as #Point being a class name. Is it then forbidden to use symbols with uppercase letters? I think something like > > { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20} asObjectOf: #Point > > is handling the format with implicit knowledge of type. While the explicit version would be > > { #Point -> { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20}} asObject > > And then nested objects are as easy as > > {#PointCollection -> { > #points -> { {#Point -> { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20} }. > {#Point -> { #x -> 5 . #y -> 8} } } } asObject The -> messages are just noise and add additional processing for nothing. This is just as effective: { #Point. { #x. 10 . #y. 20}} asObject {#PointCollection. { #points. { {#Point. { #x. 10 . #y. 20} }. {#Point. { #x. 5 . #y. 8} } } } asObject So an object is a pair of a class name and an array of slot specifier pairs, and a slot specifier is a pair of a slot band and a value. And of course that means that many object specs can be literal, which is useful for storing in pragmas etc: #(PointCollection (points ((Point (x 10 y 20)) ((Point (x 5 y 8)))) asObject > > would give a PointCollection of two point objects. My future wish would be that there is an object literal parser that takes all of the information from the format. And then a object literal parser that is aware of slot information. Meaning that the type information can be gathered from the object class instead having it to write in the format. In the PointCollection the slot for points would have the type information #Point attached. The format goes then to > > { #points -> { > { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20 }. > { #x -> 5 . #y -> 8 } } > > which would then the equivalent to something like JSON > > { "points" : [ > { "x" : 10, "y" : 20 }, > { "x" : 5, "y" : 8 } ] } > > What I don't know is how to solve the difference between a dictionary and an collection of associations. That's incidental to the format, internal to the parser. If the parser chooses to build a dictionary as it parses so be it. The point is that the output is as you specify; a tree of objects. The thing to think about is how to introduce labels so that sub objects can be shared in the graph, the naÃ¯ve deepCopy vs deepCopyUsing: issue. > > Norbert > > > >>> As a dictionary is both, an array of associations and a key-value store, it works perfectly there. But for other objects I have doubts. Especially is in a lot of contexts you need to have a mapping of internal state to external representation. It can be applied afterwards but I'm not sure that can work all the time. >> >> Yes after we should focus on the frequent cases. And may be having a >> literal syntax for dictionary would be good enough. >> >> I will do another version of igor's proposal with associations to see >> how it feels. >> >>> >>> my 2 cents, >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> >>>> Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM >>>> Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals >>>> To: Pharo Development <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format. >>>> It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON, it doesn't needs to >>>> have separate parser (a normal smalltalk parser used for that). >>>> >>>> The idea is quite simple: >>>> you can tell any object to represent itself as an 'object literal' , >>>> for example: >>>> >>>> (1@3) asObjectLiteral >>>> --> #(#Point 1 3) >>>> >>>> { 1@2. 3@4. true. false . nil } asObjectLiteral >>>> >>>> -> #(#Array #(#Point 1 2) #(#Point 3 4) true false nil) >>>> >>>> (Dictionary newFromPairs: { 1->#(1 2 3) . 'foo' -> 'bar' }) asObjectLiteral >>>> -> >>>> #(#Dictionary 1 #(#Array 1 2 3) 'foo' 'bar') >>>> >>>> Next thing, you can 'pretty-print' it (kinda): >>>> >>>> #(#Dictionary 1 #(#Array 1 2 3) 'foo' 'bar') printObjectLiteral >>>> >>>> '#(#Dictionary >>>> 1 >>>> (#Array 1 2 3) >>>> ''foo'' ''bar'')' >>>> >>>> >>>> and sure thing, you can do reverse conversion: >>>> >>>> '#(#Dictionary >>>> 1 >>>> (#Array 1 2 3) >>>> ''foo'' ''bar'')' parseAsObjectLiteral >>>> >>>> a Dictionary('foo'->'bar' 1->#(1 2 3) ) >>>> >>>> Initially, i thought that it could be generic (by implementing default >>>> Object>>#asObjectLiteral), >>>> but then after discussing it with others, we decided to leave >>>> >>>> Object>>#asObjectLiteral to be a subclass responsibility. >>>> So, potentially the format allows to represent any object(s) as >>>> literals, except from circular referencing objects, of course. >>>> >>>> The implementation is fairly simple, as you may guess and contains no >>>> new classes, but just extension methods here and there. >>>> >>>> Take it with grain and salt, since it is just a small proof of >>>> concept. (And if doing it for real it may need some changes etc). >>>> Since i am far from areas right now, where it can be used, i don't >>>> want to pursue it further or advocate if this is the right way to do >>>> things. >>>> Neither i having a public repository for this project.. >>>> >>>> So, if there anyone who willing to pick it up and pursue the idea >>>> further, please feel free to do so and make a public repository for >>>> project. >>> >

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Baseline question

by Peter Uhnak

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 02:35:07PM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Hi > > I 'm trying to define a baseline for our project and I defined it as > > baseline: spec > <baseline> > spec for: #common do: [ spec > baseline: 'SmaCC' with: [ spec > repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; > loads: 'SmaCC-GLR-Runtime' ]; > > package: 'SmaCC-Solidity' > "we could say that SmaccSolidity depends on Smacc-Runtime but I do not > know how to say it" > ] > > Now I thought that I could try to load it using the following > > Metacello new > baseline: 'SmaccSolidity'; > repository: 'github://RMODINRIA-Blockchain/SmaCC-Solidity'; > load. > > > But I get an error telling me that the baseline constructor does not > understand load ;( It loaded ok for me in a fresh image (pharo 6), maybe local problem? As for dependency on a package, here's an older answer by Thierry: http://forum.world.st/How-to-depend-on-another-Github-repo-from-the-baselin… Peter

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Reflecting on data (literal) object syntax

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 30.06.2017 um 21:14 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com>: > >> But what is DataFrame? > > the new collection done by alesnedr from Lviv. It is really nice but > does not solve the problem of the compact syntax. > >>> >>> STON fromString: 'Point[10,20]' >>> >> Same goes for JSON. >> >>> We were brainstorming with marcus and we could have a first nice extension: >>> >>> { 'x' -> 10 .'y' -> 20 } asObjectOf: #Point. >>>>>> 10@20 >>> >>> Now in addition I think that there is a value in having an object >>> literal syntax. >>> >>> I pasted the old mail of igor on object literals because I like the >>> idea since it does not add any change in the parser. >>> Do you remember what were the problem raised by this solution (beside >>> the fact that it had too many # and the order was like in ston not >>> explicit). >>> >>> I would love to have another pass on the idea of Igor. >> >> What I don't like about it is that the object literal exposes the internal implementation of the object. Everything is based on index. So it could suffer the same problem as fuel. When you don't have the exact same code the deserialization fails. > > Indeed this is why > { 'x' -> 10 .'y' -> 20 } asObjectOf: #Point. > could be more robust. > We could extend the object literal syntax to use association for non > collection. > I think it is more robust and more explicit. I do not know what are the semantics of detecting something as #Point being a class name. Is it then forbidden to use symbols with uppercase letters? I think something like { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20} asObjectOf: #Point is handling the format with implicit knowledge of type. While the explicit version would be { #Point -> { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20}} asObject And then nested objects are as easy as {#PointCollection -> { #points -> { {#Point -> { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20} }. {#Point -> { #x -> 5 . #y -> 8} } } } asObject would give a PointCollection of two point objects. My future wish would be that there is an object literal parser that takes all of the information from the format. And then a object literal parser that is aware of slot information. Meaning that the type information can be gathered from the object class instead having it to write in the format. In the PointCollection the slot for points would have the type information #Point attached. The format goes then to { #points -> { { #x -> 10 . #y -> 20 }. { #x -> 5 . #y -> 8 } } which would then the equivalent to something like JSON { "points" : [ { "x" : 10, "y" : 20 }, { "x" : 5, "y" : 8 } ] } What I don't know is how to solve the difference between a dictionary and an collection of associations. Norbert >> As a dictionary is both, an array of associations and a key-value store, it works perfectly there. But for other objects I have doubts. Especially is in a lot of contexts you need to have a mapping of internal state to external representation. It can be applied afterwards but I'm not sure that can work all the time. > > Yes after we should focus on the frequent cases. And may be having a > literal syntax for dictionary would be good enough. > > I will do another version of igor's proposal with associations to see > how it feels. > >> >> my 2 cents, >> >> Norbert >> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> >>> Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM >>> Subject: [Pharo-project] Yet another Notation format: Object literals >>> To: Pharo Development <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> as i promised before, here the simple smalltalk-based literal format. >>> It based on smalltalk syntax, and so, unlike JSON, it doesn't needs to >>> have separate parser (a normal smalltalk parser used for that). >>> >>> The idea is quite simple: >>> you can tell any object to represent itself as an 'object literal' , >>> for example: >>> >>> (1@3) asObjectLiteral >>> --> #(#Point 1 3) >>> >>> { 1@2. 3@4. true. false . nil } asObjectLiteral >>> >>> -> #(#Array #(#Point 1 2) #(#Point 3 4) true false nil) >>> >>> (Dictionary newFromPairs: { 1->#(1 2 3) . 'foo' -> 'bar' }) asObjectLiteral >>> -> >>> #(#Dictionary 1 #(#Array 1 2 3) 'foo' 'bar') >>> >>> Next thing, you can 'pretty-print' it (kinda): >>> >>> #(#Dictionary 1 #(#Array 1 2 3) 'foo' 'bar') printObjectLiteral >>> >>> '#(#Dictionary >>> 1 >>> (#Array 1 2 3) >>> ''foo'' ''bar'')' >>> >>> >>> and sure thing, you can do reverse conversion: >>> >>> '#(#Dictionary >>> 1 >>> (#Array 1 2 3) >>> ''foo'' ''bar'')' parseAsObjectLiteral >>> >>> a Dictionary('foo'->'bar' 1->#(1 2 3) ) >>> >>> Initially, i thought that it could be generic (by implementing default >>> Object>>#asObjectLiteral), >>> but then after discussing it with others, we decided to leave >>> >>> Object>>#asObjectLiteral to be a subclass responsibility. >>> So, potentially the format allows to represent any object(s) as >>> literals, except from circular referencing objects, of course. >>> >>> The implementation is fairly simple, as you may guess and contains no >>> new classes, but just extension methods here and there. >>> >>> Take it with grain and salt, since it is just a small proof of >>> concept. (And if doing it for real it may need some changes etc). >>> Since i am far from areas right now, where it can be used, i don't >>> want to pursue it further or advocate if this is the right way to do >>> things. >>> Neither i having a public repository for this project.. >>> >>> So, if there anyone who willing to pick it up and pursue the idea >>> further, please feel free to do so and make a public repository for >>> project. >>

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] git, packages, and package dependencies (also migration from sthub to git)

by Luke Gorrie

On 1 July 2017 at 13:28, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > after many-o-hours spent on my git-migration tool ( > https://github.com/peteruhnak/git-migration ), I've concluded that the > migration cannot be properly done for packages. > Let us hope this effort can be salvaged! > In mcz/monticello, every package has an independent history and can change > independently of each other. > In git, this history is merged into a single hierarchy, therefore: > Git does not strictly require you to put all of your commits into a single hierarchy. You can also have multiple root commits in the same repository i.e. multiple parallel hierarchies of commits. Then you can combine these together with merge commits if/when you want to have them in the same tree (afaik.) See 'git commit --orphan' for introducing a new root commit into the repo. So thinking aloud... Perhaps for each package could you create a dedicated branch (A, B, ...) with its own root commit? This way each package would have a distinct history on its private branch and not be prone to collisions. If you want to combine multiple packages into one tree then you could create a new branch (A+B) that merges the required per-package branches (which remain isolated and pristine.) Just an idea -- sorry if I have misunderstood your use case, and let me know if this idea requires more explanation. Cheers, -Luke

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] Baseline question

by Julien Delplanque

Hello, To do my baselines I do the following: 1. I create a subclass of BaselineOf. 2. I create an instance method #baseline: baseline: spec <baseline> spec for: #common do: [ self defineDependencies: spec; definePackages: spec ] 3. I create the #defineDependencies: instance method (for example in SFDiff): defineDependencies: spec ^ spec project: 'ChangeModel' with: [ spec className: 'ConfigurationOfFamixDiff'; version: #development; repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Moose/FamixDiff/main'; loads: 'ChangeModel' ]; project: 'FamixDiff' with: [ spec className: 'ConfigurationOfFamixDiff'; version: #development; repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Moose/FamixDiff/main'; loads: 'Core' ]; yourself 4. I create the #definePackages: instance method (still for SFDiff): definePackages: spec ^ spec package: 'SimilarityFlooding' with: [ spec requires: #('ChangeModel') ]; package: 'SimilarityFlooding-Tests' with: [ spec requires: #('SimilarityFlooding') ]; package: 'SimilarityFlooding-Diff' with: [ spec requires: #('SimilarityFlooding') ]; package: 'SimilarityFlooding-Diff-Tests' with: [ spec requires: #('SimilarityFlooding-Diff') ]; package: 'SimilarityFlooding-Evaluator' with: [ spec requires: #('SimilarityFlooding' 'FamixDiff') ]; package: 'SimilarityFlooding-DiffOrion' with: [ spec requires: #('SimilarityFlooding-Diff') ]; yourself Separating the dependencies and package definitions allow me to modify it easily. I hope it helps. Julien PS: to make a baseline use on another baseline as dependency I put this kind of source code in #defineDependencies: spec baseline: 'DependenceName' with: [ spec repository: 'github://user/repositoryname/eventualdirectory' ]. On 01/07/17 14:35, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Hi > > I 'm trying to define a baseline for our project and I defined it as > > baseline: spec > <baseline> > spec for: #common do: [ spec > baseline: 'SmaCC' with: [ spec > repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; > loads: 'SmaCC-GLR-Runtime' ]; > > package: 'SmaCC-Solidity' > "we could say that SmaccSolidity depends on Smacc-Runtime but I do not > know how to say it" > ] > > Now I thought that I could try to load it using the following > > Metacello new > baseline: 'SmaccSolidity'; > repository: 'github://RMODINRIA-Blockchain/SmaCC-Solidity'; > load. > > > But I get an error telling me that the baseline constructor does not > understand load ;( > > I read the blog of peter > https://www.peteruhnak.com/blog/2016/07/25/how-to-use-git-and-github-with-p… > > and I'm doing exactly the same so I wonder. > > Stef >

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] git, packages, and package dependencies (also migration from sthub to git)

by Peter Uhnak

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 02:22:53PM +0200, Damien Pollet wrote: > On 1 July 2017 at 13:28, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In mcz/monticello, every package has an independent history and can change > > independently of each other. > > In git, this history is merged into a single hierarchy, therefore: > > * a specific version of package A mandates specific versions of > > every other package in the project > > * it is not possible to do a 1:1 migration from mcz to git and > > keep this flexibility > > > > Did you ever use that feature (to achieve something precise, not just > because it's here)? Well the implications are more problematic. Imagine you have pkg A, with commits A1,A2,A3. Now you are in A3 and you create a new package (B) and commit it (B1, which has A3 as a parent). Then you move back in history to A2, or you create A4 (as a child of A2) -- package B no longer exists. So you cannot go back in history for any package without affecting the rest of the packages. I think this is a cognitive shift for people switching. And practically speaking if you want to go back for just a single package you have to cherry pick, which is error-prone. (none of this is problem for me, as I've been using git in Pharo for a long time, but more shining light on the impending issues for people now switching) > > > The only solution I see is to either separate every package to a separate > > git project to keep the flexibility or use git subtree/git module... which > > are both complications... > > > > Yes, it's a painâ¦ might be useful in some cases but I think most of the > time versioning each package of a project independently is just cognitive > noise. > > As a git commit specifies the code in the entire project, even across > > packages, then I wonder what is the point of expressing package > > dependencies _within_ the project (whether in BaselineOf or Cargo). > > > > Load order? Ah, right. > > > -- > Damien Pollet > type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] git, packages, and package dependencies (also migration from sthub to git)

by stephan

On 01-07-17 14:22, Damien Pollet wrote: > Yes, it's a painâ¦ might be useful in some cases but I think most of the > time versioning each package of a project independently is just > cognitive noise. No, it is essential complexity in most cases. As soon as independent teams/people make changes you need to split projects up. How to do so to get the least friction is left as an exercise to the reader (see Parnas) Stephan

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [FT improvements] [GSoC] [guidance needed] move some of the data source responsibilities to the cells

by Stephane Ducasse

Esteban is moving this week-end from another part of France to Lille so I think that he will get back to live wednesday. On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Elhamer <abdelkhalekdev(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Since there are no response, I am guessing that this design is okay and i > will go for it :D. > > Best, > Elhamer. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/FT-improvements-GSoC-guidance-needed-move-some-of-the… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

July 1, 2017

Baseline question

by Stephane Ducasse

Hi I 'm trying to define a baseline for our project and I defined it as baseline: spec <baseline> spec for: #common do: [ spec baseline: 'SmaCC' with: [ spec repository: 'github://ThierryGoubier/SmaCC'; loads: 'SmaCC-GLR-Runtime' ]; package: 'SmaCC-Solidity' "we could say that SmaccSolidity depends on Smacc-Runtime but I do not know how to say it" ] Now I thought that I could try to load it using the following Metacello new baseline: 'SmaccSolidity'; repository: 'github://RMODINRIA-Blockchain/SmaCC-Solidity'; load. But I get an error telling me that the baseline constructor does not understand load ;( I read the blog of peter https://www.peteruhnak.com/blog/2016/07/25/how-to-use-git-and-github-with-p… and I'm doing exactly the same so I wonder. Stef

July 1, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] git, packages, and package dependencies (also migration from sthub to git)

by Damien Pollet

On 1 July 2017 at 13:28, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In mcz/monticello, every package has an independent history and can change > independently of each other. > In git, this history is merged into a single hierarchy, therefore: > * a specific version of package A mandates specific versions of > every other package in the project > * it is not possible to do a 1:1 migration from mcz to git and > keep this flexibility > Did you ever use that feature (to achieve something precise, not just because it's here)? The only solution I see is to either separate every package to a separate > git project to keep the flexibility or use git subtree/git module... which > are both complications... > Yes, it's a painâ¦ might be useful in some cases but I think most of the time versioning each package of a project independently is just cognitive noise. As a git commit specifies the code in the entire project, even across > packages, then I wonder what is the point of expressing package > dependencies _within_ the project (whether in BaselineOf or Cargo). > Load order? -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

July 1, 2017