- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] Pharo poster

by stepharong

**tx** I added the two files to the media folder on file.pharo.org On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:12:36 +0100, Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 12:08, stepharong wrote: >> Hi >> >> I'm brainstorming about a pharo poster and I remember that one person >> produce a poster with all the pharo technologies. >> I'm that I saved it somewhere but I do not know where. I tried to find >> it with google but no chance for now. >> >> Stef >> >> > > Hi! > > See join files: > > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-family-update-td4857661.html > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dec. 10, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] RBPattern matching dynamic array expressions

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Hi, this is good that we are discussing these problems as the pattern syntax is very powerful, but it has some inconsistencies. Now Iâd say that dynamic arrays should work similarly to statements and in '{ `@first . `@second . `@third }â `@third should not match multiple âstatementsâ as we have a dot syntax for that. Regarding your last example '`.head `.@tail' should not parse at all (at leas according to what I have seen) but it does. It is parsed into a message node with selector `.@tail and a receiver variable node `.head. It will match well if you put a dot between statements: '`.head . `.@tailâ. But yes, Iâd like to have a parser failure as dot is used for defining statement nodesâ¦ By the way for testing purposes you can inspect something like: RBPatternParser parseExpression: '`.head `.@tailâ and see that it is parsed into a message node. Cheers. Uko > On 10 Dec 2016, at 10:05, stepharong <stepharong(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Hi nicolai > > I always thought that I understand and I always find a situation that totally confused me. > This is why I asked some guys expert in transformation to have a look and they got confused. > This is why camille teruel started to work with Mark on Phorms. > But the effort got stalled. > > Stef > > Background : > > initial question: > http://forum.world.st/RewriteTool-matching-parts-of-an-array-tp4910482.html <http://forum.world.st/RewriteTool-matching-parts-of-an-array-tp4910482.html> > > my fix : > 18910 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18910/MNU-OrderedCollection-parent-when-t…> MNU: OrderedCollection>>parent: when trying to rewrite a tree with RBParseTreeRewriter > > the error my fix introduced :-) : > 19445 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19445/Pattern-code-ArrayNode-matching-fai…> Pattern code ArrayNode matching failure > > Question : how should a pattern with three variables (first/second/third) look like to match the expression > { (1@2) . Color red . 3} and assign the (sub)-expressions > 1@2 > Color red > 3 > to the three variables first/second/third ? > > Looking at the initial question "RegisterRewriteTool matching parts of an array", I was suprised that > for the pattern and the dynamic array expression: > pattern := '{ `@first . `@second . `@third }' > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}' > the third variable matches all three expressions and the first two are empty: > > RBPatternVariableNode(`@first)->an OrderedCollection() > RBPatternVariableNode(`@second)->an OrderedCollection() > RBPatternVariableNode(`@third)->an OrderedCollection(RBMessageNode((1 @ 2)) RBMessageNode(Color red) RBLiteralValueNode(3)) > > I fixed this in a way, that all three variables gets assigned one (sub)expression of the array. > But the fix was wrong, now a statement-list-pattern-variable cannot be used anymore to match > the array statements: > > pattern := '{ `@.stmts }'. > expression:= RBParser parseExpression:'{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > results in an error during matching but I would expect the result: > RBPatternVariableNode(`@.stmts)->an OrderedCollection(RBMessageNode((1 @ 2)) RBMessageNode(Color red) RBLiteralValueNode(3)) > > Now I am not sure that the pattern { `@first . `@second . `@third }' is actually a valid > pattern for matching the array (sub)-expressions, the array contents > is a list of three single statemts and @first isn't a statement pattern, but a pattern for an > expression list. > > On the other hand, if I try to match *three statements* without the being in a dynamic array: > (Note the missing curly braces) > > pattern := '`@first . `@second . `@third '. > expression : parseExpression: ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > The result works as I wanted them for the array pattern: > > RBPatternVariableNode(`@first)->RBMessageNode(1 @ 2) RBPatternVariableNode(`@second)->RBMessageNode(Color red) RBPatternVariableNode(`@third)->RBLiteralValueNode(3) > > > So, is the pattern actually right or is the matching wrong? > What should I expect by these patterns and expressions: > > pattern := '`@first . `@second . `@third '. > expression : parseExpression: ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > pattern := '`.first. `.second. `.third. '. > expression := ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > pattern := '{`.first. `.second. `.third.}'. > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > pattern := '{`@.all}'. > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > > pattern := '{`@.all}'. > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > pattern := '`.head. `.@tail'. > expression := '(1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > pattern := '{`.head. `.@tail}'. > expression := '{(1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > I would expect all statement-pattern without the dynamic array, assign the variables to the > subexpressions, and the same way for the pattern with dynamic arrays. > > Btw, I don't know why this does not match > pattern := '`.head `.@tail'. > expression := '(1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > isn't the first variable a statement pattern ? > From the rewrite-tool documentation (http://www.refactory.com/tools/refactoring-browser/rewrite-tool <http://www.refactory.com/tools/refactoring-browser/rewrite-tool>): > > ` recurse into the thing that is matched looking for more matches > @ treat the item as a list > ; used for messages where the message is treated as a list of messages in a cascade > . treat the item as a statement in a sequence node > # matches literals > > > thanks in advance > > nicolai > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ <http://www.opera.com/mail/>

Dec. 10, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] protocol pane "no messages" Re: [Pharo-users] setter method

by Ben Coman

Nope. I'll see your pedantic, and raise you... Clicking on "no messages" and adding a method you get... --all-- as yet unclassified. So "no protocols" goes away, but there are still no protocols. (pedantic poker, fun for all the family) cheers -ben On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:56 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > To be pedantic it should be "no protocols" because as soon as you add one, > you get > > --all-- > someaddedprotocol > > even if there is no method. > > Phil > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> [Forwarded to pharo-dev for side discussion...] >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Kateryna Aloshkina >> > <aloshkina(a)ucu.edu.ua> wrote: >> >> Hi everybody! >> >> >> >> I've just joined the community:) and have a question >> >> How to write the method count: such that, when invoked on an instance >> >> of >> >> Counter, instance variable is set to the argument given to the message? >> >> so that >> >> Counter new count: 7 >> >> would set the value of a new Counter instance to 7 >> >> (It is a little exercise from >> >> http://rmod-pharo-mooc.lille.inria.fr/MOOC/Exercises/Exo-Counter.pdf) >> >> >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Kateryna >> > >> > Welcome Kateryna, >> > I hope you are having fun and Pharo changes the way you think about >> > programming. >> > >> > Referring to Figure 1.2, assuming you've already created the class, >> > first make sure you are on the instance-side rather than the class-side >> > of the class such that the class definition in the bottom (code) pane >> > looks just like Figure 1.2. Click the <Class> button to toggle which >> > side you look at. >> > >> > Now in the third (protocols) pane on "no messages" >> > and you will get a method template in the code pane >> > >> > Change... messageSelectorAndArgumentNames >> > to... count: >> > >> > then change.... statements >> > to an assignment to the instance variable. >> > and <Accept> the the code to save & compile the method. >> >> To be pedantic, shouldn't "no messages" actually be "no methods" >> But maybe even better would be... "click for method template" ? >> >> cheers -ben >> >

Dec. 10, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo poster

by Cyril Ferlicot D.

On 10/12/2016 12:08, stepharong wrote: > Hi > > I'm brainstorming about a pharo poster and I remember that one person > produce a poster with all the pharo technologies. > I'm that I saved it somewhere but I do not know where. I tried to find > it with google but no chance for now. > > Stef > > Hi! See join files: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-family-update-td4857661.html -- Cyril Ferlicot http://www.synectique.eu 2 rue Jacques PrÃ©vert 01, 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France

Dec. 10, 2016

Pharo poster

by stepharong

Hi I'm brainstorming about a pharo poster and I remember that one person produce a poster with all the pharo technologies. I'm that I saved it somewhere but I do not know where. I tried to find it with google but no chance for now. Stef -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dec. 10, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] protocol pane "no messages" Re: [Pharo-users] setter method

by stepharong

> > To be pedantic, shouldn't "no messages" actually be "no methods" > But maybe even better would be... "click for method template" ? send a fix :) > > cheers -ben > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dec. 10, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] RBPattern matching dynamic array expressions

by stepharong

Hi nicolai I always thought that I understand and I always find a situation that totally confused me. This is why I asked some guys expert in transformation to have a look and they got confused. This is why camille teruel started to work with Mark on Phorms. But the effort got stalled. Stef > Background : > > initial question: > http://forum.world.st/RewriteTool-matching-parts-of-an-array-tp4910482.html > my fix : > 18910 MNU: OrderedCollection>>parent: when trying to rewrite a tree with > RBParseTreeRewriter > > the error my fix introduced :-) : > 19445 Pattern code ArrayNode matching failure > > Question : how should a pattern with three variables > (first/second/third) look like to match the expression > { (1@2) . Color red . 3} and assign the (sub)-expressions1@2 > Color red > 3 > to the three variables first/second/third ? > > Looking at the initial question "RegisterRewriteTool matching parts of > an array", I was suprised that > for the pattern and the dynamic array expression: > pattern := '{ `@first . `@second . `@third }' > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}' > the third variable matches all three expressions and the first two are > empty: > > RBPatternVariableNode(`@first)->an OrderedCollection() > RBPatternVariableNode(`@second)->an OrderedCollection() > RBPatternVariableNode(`@third)->an OrderedCollection(RBMessageNode((1 @ > 2)) RBMessageNode(Color red) RBLiteralValueNode(3)) > > I fixed this in a way, that all three variables gets assigned one > (sub)expression of the array. > But the fix was wrong, now a statement-list-pattern-variable cannot be > used anymore to match > the array statements: > > pattern := '{ `@.stmts }'. > expression:= RBParser parseExpression:'{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > results in an error during matching but I would expect the result: > RBPatternVariableNode(`@.stmts)->an OrderedCollection(RBMessageNode((1 @ > 2)) RBMessageNode(Color red) RBLiteralValueNode(3)) > Now I am not sure that the pattern { `@first . `@second . `@third }' is > actually a valid > pattern for matching the array (sub)-expressions, the array contents > is a list of three single statemts and @first isn't a statement pattern, > but a pattern for an > expression list. > > On the other hand, if I try to match *three statements* without the > being in a dynamic array: > (Note the missing curly braces) > > pattern := '`@first . `@second . `@third '. > expression : parseExpression: ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > The result works as I wanted them for the array pattern: > > RBPatternVariableNode(`@first)->RBMessageNode(1 @ 2) > RBPatternVariableNode(`@second)->RBMessageNode(Color red) > RBPatternVariableNode(`@third)->RBLiteralValueNode(3) > > > So, is the pattern actually right or is the matching wrong? > What should I expect by these patterns and expressions: > > pattern := '`@first . `@second . `@third '. > expression : parseExpression: ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > pattern := '`.first. `.second. `.third. '. > expression := ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > pattern := '{`.first. `.second. `.third.}'. > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > pattern := '{`@.all}'. > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > > pattern := '{`@.all}'. > expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > pattern := '`.head. `.@tail'. > expression := '(1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > pattern := '{`.head. `.@tail}'. > expression := '{(1@2) . Color red . 3}'. > > I would expect all statement-pattern without the dynamic array, assign > the variables to the > subexpressions, and the same way for the pattern with dynamic arrays. > > Btw, I don't know why this does not match > pattern := '`.head `.@tail'. > expression := '(1@2) . Color red . 3'. > > isn't the first variable a statement pattern ? > From the rewrite-tool documentation > (http://www.refactory.com/tools/refactoring-browser/rewrite-tool) > > ` recurse into the thing that is matched looking for more matches > @ treat the item as a list > ; used for messages where the message is treated as a list of > messages in a cascade > . treat the item as a statement in a sequence node > # matches literals > > > thanks in advance > > nicolai > > > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dec. 10, 2016

RBPattern matching dynamic array expressions

by Nicolai Hess

Background : initial question: http://forum.world.st/RewriteTool-matching-parts-of-an-array-tp4910482.html my fix : 18910 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18910/MNU-OrderedCollection-parent-when-t…> MNU: OrderedCollection>>parent: when trying to rewrite a tree with RBParseTreeRewriter the error my fix introduced :-) : 19445 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19445/Pattern-code-ArrayNode-matching-fai…> Pattern code ArrayNode matching failure Question : how should a pattern with three variables (first/second/third) look like to match the expression { (1@2) . Color red . 3} and assign the (sub)-expressions 1@2 Color red 3 to the three variables first/second/third ? Looking at the initial question "RegisterRewriteTool matching parts of an array", I was suprised that for the pattern and the dynamic array expression: pattern := '{ `@first . `@second . `@third }' expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}' the third variable matches all three expressions and the first two are empty: RBPatternVariableNode(`@first)->an OrderedCollection() RBPatternVariableNode(`@second)->an OrderedCollection() RBPatternVariableNode(`@third)->an OrderedCollection(RBMessageNode((1 @ 2)) RBMessageNode(Color red) RBLiteralValueNode(3)) I fixed this in a way, that all three variables gets assigned one (sub)expression of the array. But the fix was wrong, now a statement-list-pattern-variable cannot be used anymore to match the array statements: pattern := '{ `@.stmts }'. expression:= RBParser parseExpression:'{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. results in an error during matching but I would expect the result: RBPatternVariableNode(`@.stmts)->an OrderedCollection(RBMessageNode((1 @ 2)) RBMessageNode(Color red) RBLiteralValueNode(3)) Now I am not sure that the pattern { `@first . `@second . `@third }' is actually a valid pattern for matching the array (sub)-expressions, the array contents is a list of three single statemts and @first isn't a statement pattern, but a pattern for an expression list. On the other hand, if I try to match *three statements* without the being in a dynamic array: (Note the missing curly braces) pattern := '`@first . `@second . `@third '. expression : parseExpression: ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. The result works as I wanted them for the array pattern: RBPatternVariableNode(`@first)->RBMessageNode(1 @ 2) RBPatternVariableNode(`@second)->RBMessageNode(Color red) RBPatternVariableNode(`@third)->RBLiteralValueNode(3) So, is the pattern actually right or is the matching wrong? What should I expect by these patterns and expressions: pattern := '`@first . `@second . `@third '. expression : parseExpression: ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. pattern := '`.first. `.second. `.third. '. expression := ' (1@2) . Color red . 3'. pattern := '{`.first. `.second. `.third.}'. expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. pattern := '{`@.all}'. expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. pattern := '{`@.all}'. expression := '{ (1@2) . Color red . 3}'. pattern := '`.head. `.@tail'. expression := '(1@2) . Color red . 3'. pattern := '{`.head. `.@tail}'. expression := '{(1@2) . Color red . 3}'. I would expect all statement-pattern without the dynamic array, assign the variables to the subexpressions, and the same way for the pattern with dynamic arrays. Btw, I don't know why this does not match pattern := '`.head `.@tail'. expression := '(1@2) . Color red . 3'. isn't the first variable a statement pattern ? >From the rewrite-tool documentation ( http://www.refactory.com/tools/refactoring-browser/rewrite-tool) ` recurse into the thing that is matched looking for more matches @ treat the item as a list ; used for messages where the message is treated as a list of messages in a cascade . treat the item as a statement in a sequence node # matches literals thanks in advance nicolai

Dec. 10, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] consider putting stars on our nice books on github :)

by Julien Delplanque

Was already done for some of them. Now done for all of them. :-) On 09/12/16 16:11, stepharong wrote: > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/EnterprisePharo > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/NumericalMethods > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/UpdatedPharoByExample > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/BuildingUIWithSpec > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/TinyBlogTutorial > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/ExploringVMs > > https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/DeepIntoPharo > > Stef

Dec. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] protocol pane "no messages" Re: [Pharo-users] setter method

by phil＠highoctane.be

To be pedantic it should be "no protocols" because as soon as you add one, you get --all-- someaddedprotocol even if there is no method. Phil On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > [Forwarded to pharo-dev for side discussion...] > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Kateryna Aloshkina > > <aloshkina(a)ucu.edu.ua> wrote: > >> Hi everybody! > >> > >> I've just joined the community:) and have a question > >> How to write the method count: such that, when invoked on an instance of > >> Counter, instance variable is set to the argument given to the message? > >> so that > >> Counter new count: 7 > >> would set the value of a new Counter instance to 7 > >> (It is a little exercise from > >> http://rmod-pharo-mooc.lille.inria.fr/MOOC/Exercises/Exo-Counter.pdf) > >> > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> Kateryna > > > > Welcome Kateryna, > > I hope you are having fun and Pharo changes the way you think about > programming. > > > > Referring to Figure 1.2, assuming you've already created the class, > > first make sure you are on the instance-side rather than the class-side > > of the class such that the class definition in the bottom (code) pane > > looks just like Figure 1.2. Click the <Class> button to toggle which > > side you look at. > > > > Now in the third (protocols) pane on "no messages" > > and you will get a method template in the code pane > > > > Change... messageSelectorAndArgumentNames > > to... count: > > > > then change.... statements > > to an assignment to the instance variable. > > and <Accept> the the code to save & compile the method. > > To be pedantic, shouldn't "no messages" actually be "no methods" > But maybe even better would be... "click for method template" ? > > cheers -ben > >

Dec. 9, 2016