- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] Fwd:
by StÃ©phane Ducasse June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: Samuel MORELLO <samuel.morello(a)ouvanous.com> > Date: June 18, 2008 7:59:53 PM CEDT > To: StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > > > StÃ©pahne, > > Peux tu me dire si cette version va mieux ? > Jai essayÃ© avec un n mais ca ne va pas des masses. > J'ai ecartÃ© l'espace entre 'l'oeil' et le base du phare. En petit > ca passe mieux. > > Qu'en pesnes tu ? > HÃ©sites pas a dire quoi > > Merci > Sam

8 10

[Pharo-project] Can someone add me on google code
by Noury Bouraqadi June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

My google email is noury.bouraqadi(a)gmail.com Thanks, Noury ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Noury Bouraqadi - Enseignant/Chercheur Responsable de l'enseignement de l'informatique ARMINES - Ecole des Mines de Douai - Dept. I.A. http://vst.ensm-douai.fr/noury European Smalltalk Users Group Board http://www.esug.org ------------------------------------------------------------------

2 2

[Pharo-project] Monticello test fixes
by Norbert Hartl June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

I uploaded Monticello-NorbertHartl.317 to PharoInbox. That fixes two Monticello tests. After this fix I have 4 failures left. Norbert

2 2

[Pharo-project] [Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: Bug in object finalization?]
by Norbert Hartl June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

So, now I'm all for fixing it and ressurect the test case. I'll upload something to PharoInbox. Afterwards it needs to be reinitialized. What is the preferred way of having doits in the update stream? Anyway I uploaded SLICE-WeakRegistryAndFinalizerTestFix to PharoInbox. afterwards a WeakRegistry default initialize: WeakRegistry default size will be necessary. Norbert

3 18

[Pharo-project] Logos
by StÃ©phane Ducasse June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: Samuel MORELLO <samuel.morello(a)ouvanous.com> > Date: June 18, 2008 10:55:19 AM CEDT > To: StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > Subject: Re: [OUVANOUS] Re: Nouvelle version > > les voici ;-) > > Le 18 juin 08 Ã 10:39, StÃ©phane DUCASSE a Ã©crit : > >> --- Reply ABOVE THIS LINE to post a comment to the project --- >> >> Company: Smalltalk >> Project: Pharo >> Link: https://ouvanous.projectpath.com/C18821220 >> >> StÃ©phane DUCASSE said: >> >> ou cela :) >> >> .......................................................................... >> >> Read the original message, view this comment, and download >> attachments at: >> https://ouvanous.projectpath.com/C18821220 >> >> You can always check the Overview for the latest project activity: >> https://ouvanous.projectpath.com/projects/1873269/project/log

9 12

[Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] to:do: optimization is wrong when the block modifies the limit
by StÃ©phane Ducasse June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: nicolas cellier <ncellier(a)ifrance.com> > Date: June 13, 2008 3:28:25 AM CEDT > To: squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > Subject: [squeak-dev] to:do: optimization is wrong when the block > modifies the limit > Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > > > While browsing #to:do: optimization implementation i noticed this: > > | n | > n := 2. > 1 to: n do: [:i | (n := n+1)>10 ifTrue: [self halt: 'Should I get > here?']]. > ^n > > When you think in term of message send, well NO, YOU SHOULD NOT GET > HERE. > > Optimization is such a subtle thing that: > > | n | > 1 to: (n := 2) do: [:i | n := n+1. n>10 ifTrue: [self halt: 'You > won''t get there']]. > ^n > > Ha Ha, it's really fun! > Of course, if one corrects this bug, there is a pending Decompiler > issue: > > testDecompileToDoWithMovingLimit > | n i | > n := 4. > i := 1. > [i <= n] whileTrue: [ > n := n - 1. > i := i + 1]. > > would decompile into: > | n | > n := 4. > 1 > to: n > do: [:i | n := n - 1] > > This is worth a http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7093 > Ah i wonder what would a NewCompiler do to to:do: > > Nicolas > > >

1 0

[Pharo-project] Reintegration of StringSocket
by Damien Cassou June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

Hi, StringSocket is a class part of Nebraska. You removed that class. However, Universe uses this class to publish packages. Is it possible to reintegrate this class, at least partially to support Universe? Bye -- Damien Cassou Peter von der AhÃ©: Â«I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luckÂ». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)

5 8

[Pharo-project] New pharo-dev based on latest version
by Damien Cassou June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

I've just published a new pharo-dev version on: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/Downloads?tm=2. It is based on version 10041 which contains cleaning of MVC. -- Damien Cassou Peter von der AhÃ©: Â«I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luckÂ». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)

2 1

June 17, 2008

Hi all I harvested the changes proposed by alain for the removal of MVC. Please test pharo since it was a large change. stef

2 2

[Pharo-project] ObjectFinalizerTests understanding problems
by Norbert Hartl June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Before I recognized that Adrian fixed the ObjectFinalizerTests>>testFinalizationOfEquals I gave it try myself. I came to the same conclusion as Adrian how to fix. But now after knowing how it works I do not know why the test succeeds :) The test uses 1 to: 5 do: [:n | o := Object new. bag add: n. o toFinalizeSend: #remove: to: bag with: n]. 1 to: 5 do: [:n | o := Object new. bag add: n. o toFinalizeSend: #remove: to: bag with: n]. My problem is that toFinalizeSend:to:with adds an Objectfinalizer to the finalizationRegistry of the instance. But Object>>finalizationRegistry "Answer the finalization registry associated with the receiver." ^WeakRegistry default returns a global object which is WeakKeyDictionary. And | d | d := WeakKeyDictionary new. d at: (1 asString copy) put: $a. d at: (1 asString copy) put: $b. d size prints 1. To me that would exchange every entry from the first run by the second run (because the objects are equal). So I would assume that if there does not happen a run of the garbagecollector between the two loops the objects of the first loop should be still contained in the bag. But the test is named finalizationOfEquals so I have to assume: self doesNotUnderstand Can someone explain it to me, please? Norbert

3 4