- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Camille Teruel

On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:33, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > One thing that confuses me with these terminologies is that it's hard to know when someone speak about the syntactic construct (that you find in source code) or about the result of evaluating this construct (that close over an actual environment). > What I mean is that a block can be evaluated several times, and each time it gives a new block closure. > That's why I like the name BlockClosure: it make a difference between the block (that you find in source code) and the block closure (the object that represent the evaluation of a block). And I think that some languages make this distinction: they say lambda expression for the former and closure for the later > > > On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:21, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. >> >> But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. >> >> Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). >> >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? >>> >>> Uko >>> >>> On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >>>> >>>> Alexandre >>>> -- >>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>>>> >>>>> That might be actually a good idea >>>>> >>>>> sebastian >>>>> >>>>> o/ >>>>> >>>>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Sebastian Sastre

+1 sebastian o/ > On 17/04/2014, at 12:21, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > > Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. > > But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. > > Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >> Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? >> >> Uko >> >>> On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >>> >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>>> >>>> That might be actually a good idea >>>> >>>> sebastian >>>> >>>> o/ >>>> >>>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Camille Teruel

One thing that confuses me with these terminologies is that it's hard to know when someone speak about the syntactic construct (that you find in source code) or about the result of evaluating this construct (that close over an actual environment). What I mean is that a block can be evaluated several times, and each time it gives a new block closure. That's why I like the name BlockClosure: it make a difference between the block (that you find in source code) and the block closure (the object that represent the evaluation of a block). On 17 avr. 2014, at 17:21, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. > > But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. > > Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? >> >> Uko >> >> On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >>> >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>>> >>>> That might be actually a good idea >>>> >>>> sebastian >>>> >>>> o/ >>>> >>>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by ClÃ©ment Bera

2014-04-17 6:57 GMT-07:00 Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com>: > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > wrote: > > the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. > Calling a block what is actually a closure > > > javascript is teaching every day to thousands what a real Closure is every > day, so yeah that would be probably better > > > Javascript closures are different from Smalltalk BlockClosure, they do not support non local return. This extra feature allows smalltalk Closures to be upgraded from just Closure to BlockClosure to avoid any confusion with javascript closures (or people would think they are the same).

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Manfred KrÃ¶hnert

Hi, I just wanted to mention that Apple also added 'Closures' as 'Blocks' to Objective-C (respectively C): https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Prog… Best, Manfred On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is > doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of > some other languages? > > Uko > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > wrote: > > > Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a > closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a > well-marketed move in my opinion. > > > > Alexandre > > -- > > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre < > sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. > >> > >> That might be actually a good idea > >> > >> sebastian > >> > >> o/ > >> > >> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, > what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a > specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd > rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' > >> > >> > > > > > > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Alexandre Bergel

Because what we call a block is actually a closure. Smalltalk-80 invented blocks, which were not closures at that time. Over the time we found out that Blocks are not really useful, but instead the humanity largely prefer closure. But ok, this is not a pressing thing. Was just a tough. Just to hook up with another thread, it would be great if the VM would not emit (or at least optionally) keystroke event for actually what are mouse wheel events. Pharo is almost unusable if you have a touch mouse (e.g., mighty mouse). Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? > > Uko > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. >> >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >>> >>> That might be actually a good idea >>> >>> sebastian >>> >>> o/ >>> >>> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >>> >>> >> >> > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] how to completely ignore mouse wheel events?

by Alexandre Bergel

I have modified the following methods HandMorph>>generateKeyboardEvent: evtBuf ScrollPane>>scrollByKeyboard: event The effect is now milder. Esteban, would it make sense to remove the event generation bu the VM? This works only for the old-style mouse with an actual wheel. Mighty mouse does not work at all with Pharo. We have to get this right. Emulation of events is a bad idea. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. On Apr 15, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Hi! > > Mouse wheel events are so poorly handled in Pharo, that they are not useful. > With Ronie we are seeing how we can better handle events with a window generated with SDL. But this is for the future. > > Is there a way to easily unable them? > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Itâs like saying that we have to run Pharo on JVM because everyone is doing that. In 80s block was invented. Why should we rename it because of some other languages? Uko On 17 Apr 2014, at 16:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in my opinion. > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian(a)flowingconcept.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a âblockâ. >> >> That might be actually a good idea >> >> sebastian >> >> o/ >> >> PS: thinking in that line there is also âContextâ as, conceptually, what these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific context. But to ease know-how transference and type less Iâd rather go with the most popular name, as you suggested: âBlock' >> >> > >

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Understanding WeakValueDictionary

by Norbert Hartl

Am 17.04.2014 um 16:06 schrieb Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > > On 17 April 2014 10:26, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > While looking at the code in voyage I got to WeakValueDictionary as voyage uses it as object cache. If I looked correctly the WeakValueDictionary is based on equality and not identity. Is that correct? Feels wrong! > > > well, comparison used for keys.. > and i agree that for caching, an identity comparison makes much more sense, > since you want it to be fast, and identity comparison is no doubt faster than > equality comparison, especially if keys are complex objects which implement equality based on comparing own fields. > Agreed. But I think that equality based comparison is not only slower but wrong! Implementing an object cache based on equality can easily screw up your graph. You can call it the crappiest kind of become: youâve never wanted! > but for that, i think we would need new kind of dictionary, e.g. > WeakValueIdentityKeyDictionary (or some similar name). > Agreed. > Btw, for caching i prefer to use round-robin cache with limited size You mean those things where you can state: âHey, Iâm fast because I exchanged * with + ?â :) Norbert > (like that cache never grows too big, and instead simply drops/overrides existing entries when it become full).. this helps maintaining cache size under control. > > A good example is LRUCache, which is very suitable method to cache objects.. albeit at cost of some extra processing for accessing it. > > Norbert > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko.

April 17, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Closure vs BlockClosure

by Noury Bouraqadi

+1 for BlockClosure :-) On 17 avr. 2014, at 15:44, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > abergel wrote >> Wellâ¦ the whole community of programming language call a closure a >> closure. Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a >> well-marketed move in my opinion. > > Given that Smalltalkers consider it a block and outsiders would understand > the closure part, maybe it is well-named as it is, as it is an obvious link > of these two terms. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Closure-vs-BlockClosure-tp4755091p4755104.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --

April 17, 2014