- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Anybody using Yosemite?

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Considering right now. And so I want to know if I can work with Pharo on it Uko. On 06 Aug 2014, at 13:56, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > not yet > do you? > > Esteban > > On 06 Aug 2014, at 13:46, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> just want to ask the other Pharo developers are you using Yosemite beta, and do you have any problems with it? >> >> Uko > >

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Anybody using Yosemite?

by Esteban Lorenzano

not yet do you? Esteban On 06 Aug 2014, at 13:46, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Hi, > > just want to ask the other Pharo developers are you using Yosemite beta, and do you have any problems with it? > > Uko

Aug. 6, 2014

Anybody using Yosemite?

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Hi, just want to ask the other Pharo developers are you using Yosemite beta, and do you have any problems with it? Uko

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a method I get

by Camille Teruel

On 6 aoÃ»t 2014, at 12:53, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What is interesting is to be able to reimplement #ifTrue:ifFalse: and co in any object in the system and to use it. > > Now in practice it is difficult performance wise. And why performance would be a problem? If ever it is used intensively and performance *become* a problem we can cache the deoptimized methods somewhere. > As an experiment we overrided mustBeBooleanIn: so #ifTrue:ifFalse: and co would work on any object. However this hack is slow and interesting only for experiments IMO. > I asked in the bug report to add a setting... But no one answered and it was integrated. Marcus said we'll add a setting later. So add a setting! I'm still confused about what the problem is here... Because even if it's enabled by default it cannot break anything. > > 2014-08-06 8:31 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > Ok thanks. > I do not see why this is interesting to have that. > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?13779 > > > > On 5/8/14 21:24, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: >> Because someone activated the method "mustBeBooleanMagicIn:" by default whereas it was just a hack to experiment. >> >> Basically you have an optimized message sent to a non boolean. For over a week now, in this case the code is executed as a DoIt with a non optimized message instead of raising the mustBeBoolean error. >> >> >> 2014-08-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >> Hi guys >> >> Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a method I get >> >> >> UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) >> >> UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) >> >> UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (scroller is Undeclared) >> >> Stef >> >> > >

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a method I get

by ClÃ©ment Bera

What is interesting is to be able to reimplement #ifTrue:ifFalse: and co in any object in the system and to use it. Now in practice it is difficult performance wise. As an experiment we overrided mustBeBooleanIn: so #ifTrue:ifFalse: and co would work on any object. However this hack is slow and interesting only for experiments IMO. I asked in the bug report to add a setting... But no one answered and it was integrated. Marcus said we'll add a setting later. 2014-08-06 8:31 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > Ok thanks. > I do not see why this is interesting to have that. > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?13779 > > > > On 5/8/14 21:24, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: > > Because someone activated the method "mustBeBooleanMagicIn:" by default > whereas it was just a hack to experiment. > > Basically you have an optimized message sent to a non boolean. For over > a week now, in this case the code is executed as a DoIt with a non > optimized message instead of raising the mustBeBoolean error. > > > 2014-08-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > >> Hi guys >> >> Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a >> method I get >> >> >> UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) >> >> UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) >> >> UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (scroller is Undeclared) >> >> Stef >> >> > >

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] xml-oo mapper?

by Norbert Hartl

There is Magritte-XML. Or do you mean something different? It is in Magritte3Addons on smallttalkhub Norbert Am 06.08.2014 um 09:29 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > Does anyone know if there exists an XO mapper available in the Pharo? > > Cheers, > Doru > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"

Aug. 6, 2014

xml-oo mapper?

by Tudor Girba

Hi, Does anyone know if there exists an XO mapper available in the Pharo? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a method I get

by Camille Teruel

On 5 aoÃ»t 2014, at 21:24, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Because someone activated the method "mustBeBooleanMagicIn:" by default whereas it was just a hack to experiment. If it's not integrated it's not gonna improve. This situation is a proof of that: it's because it's activated that we discover a bug (that is not the real problem BTW): wrong compilation context because of a line I kept from the old version of mustBeBooleanInMagic: (https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13780/Wrong-compilation-context-in-mustBe…) If you feel uneasy about that hack, please make a preference. So in the end I dont't understand the problem nor your tone... > > Basically you have an optimized message sent to a non boolean. For over a week now, in this case the code is executed as a DoIt with a non optimized message instead of raising the mustBeBoolean error. And instead you get a DNU, what's wrong with that? Why is mustBeBoolean any better than a DNU? For me the problem is to have ifTrue: sent to a PackageTreeNautilusUI inside a "on: Error do: [ "nothing" ]" (in PluggableTextMorph>>acceptBasic). So if anything, this hack acted as a problem revealer at the very worst. > > > 2014-08-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > Hi guys > > Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a method I get > > > UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) > > UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) > > UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (scroller is Undeclared) > > Stef > >

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and recompile a method I get

by stepharo

Ok thanks. I do not see why this is interesting to have that. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?13779 On 5/8/14 21:24, ClÃ©ment Bera wrote: > Because someone activated the method "mustBeBooleanMagicIn:" by > default whereas it was just a hack to experiment. > > Basically you have an optimized message sent to a non boolean. For > over a week now, in this case the code is executed as a DoIt with a > non optimized message instead of raising the mustBeBoolean error. > > > 2014-08-05 18:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr > <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>: > > Hi guys > > Does anybody have an idea why when I open a transcript and > recompile a method I get > > > UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) > > UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (model is Undeclared) > > UndefinedObject>>ExecuteUnOptimizedIn: (scroller is Undeclared) > > Stef > >

Aug. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [GTInspector] Showing object state using a tree

by Tudor Girba

You can install GToolkit in a Pharo 3.0 image like this: http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/installing-gtoolkit Doru On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Pablo R. Digonzelli <pdigonzelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Great!. How can i install GtInspector in a pharo image? > > TIA > > > ------------------------------ > *Ing. Pablo Digonzelli* > Software Solutions > IP-Solutiones SRL > Metrotec SRL > 25 de Mayo 521 > Email: pdigonzelli(a)softsargentina.com > pdigonzelli(a)gmail.com > Cel: 5493815982714 > > ------------------------------ > *De: *"Tudor Girba" <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> > *Para: *"Discusses Development of Pharo" <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > *Enviados: *Martes, 5 de Agosto 2014 11:06:21 > *Asunto: *[Pharo-dev] [GTInspector] Showing object state using a tree > > > Hi, > > The GTInspector now shows the state of an object in a tree view > (screenshots below). > > This tree view focuses on the internal structure of an object. > For example, when looking at a dictionary object you will see the "array" > and the "tally" > attributes and not the key value pairs. Those can be accessed from another > presentation > of a dictionary object. > > So the tree is meant to be used together with the finder and the other > presentations of on object. > > Let us know what you think. > > Cheers, > Andrei & Doru > > > [image: Inline image 1] > > [image: Inline image 2] > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Aug. 6, 2014