- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Help needed] Issuer tracker TODO Pharo3

by Marcus Denker

Hi, There are 23 issues open for Pharo3 https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/64/3-0-TODO In general, it would be nice if more people would care about -> testing and reviewing proposed fixes -> just keeping the issue tracker healthy Marcus

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Help needed with Pharo3 ChangeLog

by phil＠highoctane.be

How can one edit the page? Phil On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>wrote: > Hi, > > If people have time, it would be nice to help a bit with the ChangeLog: > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?W64 > > e.g. make sure that *your* contribution is listed! > > > > Marcus > >

March 27, 2014

Help needed with Pharo3 ChangeLog

by Marcus Denker

Hi, If people have time, it would be nice to help a bit with the ChangeLog: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?W64 e.g. make sure that *your* contribution is listed! Marcus

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core] fec020: 30804

by Marcus Denker

On 27 Mar 2014, at 13:08, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 27 Mar 2014, at 09:01, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, GitHub <noreply(a)github.com> wrote: >> 13128 Use Spotlight to quickly evaluate and inspect short expressions >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13128 >> >> >> this looks definitely like a feature to me and not a bug fix. I'm not blaming anyone, but it would be good that features stop entering the image. > > +100 Then -> please go the bug tracker -> add comments to those you do not want to see in the image It really does not scale if just 3 people sometimes look at the issue tracker. Marcus

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core] fec020: 30804

by Esteban Lorenzano

On 27 Mar 2014, at 09:01, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, GitHub <noreply(a)github.com> wrote: > 13128 Use Spotlight to quickly evaluate and inspect short expressions > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13128 > > > this looks definitely like a feature to me and not a bug fix. I'm not blaming anyone, but it would be good that features stop entering the image. +100 > > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." > Winston Churchill

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] someone using Magritte-Morph?

by Tudor Girba

Glamour is embedding Magritte-Morph. But, we do not typically use a list description, though. Doru On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > It looks to me that this: > > MAListMorph>>#strings > ^ self options collect: [ :each | self magritteDescription > reference toString: each ] > > should instead be: > > MAListMorph>>#strings > ^ self options collect: [ :each | self magritteDescription > displayStringFor: each ] > > what do you think? > > Esteban > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

March 27, 2014

someone using Magritte-Morph?

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, It looks to me that this: MAListMorph>>#strings ^ self options collect: [ :each | self magritteDescription reference toString: each ] should instead be: MAListMorph>>#strings ^ self options collect: [ :each | self magritteDescription displayStringFor: each ] what do you think? Esteban

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core] fec020: 30804

by Damien Cassou

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM, GitHub <noreply(a)github.com> wrote: > 13128 Use Spotlight to quickly evaluate and inspect short expressions > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13128 > this looks definitely like a feature to me and not a bug fix. I'm not blaming anyone, but it would be good that features stop entering the image. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] DateAndTime>>#= slow?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:55, Johan Brichau <johan(a)inceptive.be> wrote: > On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> It is slow(er) in 2 and fast(er) in 3, according to this discussion and my reading of the code. If you see the inverse, than please provide some details. > > We come from Pharo 1.4, where our timing benchmarks that use a lot of DateAndTime operations run 4x faster (in Gemstone too). > It is indeed faster in 3 than in 2. (I believe because of a wait in de DateAndTime creation that has to do with clock precision). > > Johan An x4 (400%) slowdown sounds like an unacceptable regression to me. Could you maybe provide some benchmark ? I did a quick one (in Pharo 3): [ | timestamps | timestamps := Array streamContents: [ :out | 1024 timesRepeat: [ out nextPut: (DateAndTime now - (60*60*24*265) atRandom seconds) ] ]. 64 timesRepeat: [ timestamps sorted ]. timestamps sort. timestamps collect: [ :each | timestamps includes: each ] ] timeToRun. => "0:00:00:09.491" In 1.4, this is indeed about 40 times faster: [ | timestamps | timestamps := Array streamContents: [ :out | 1024 timesRepeat: [ out nextPut: (DateAndTime now - (60*60*24*265) atRandom seconds) ] ]. 64 timesRepeat: [ timestamps sorted ]. timestamps sort. timestamps collect: [ :each | timestamps includes: each ] ] timeToRun milliSeconds. => "0:00:00:00.228" For this test, ZTimestamp is 100 times faster: [ | timestamps | timestamps := Array streamContents: [ :out | 1024 timesRepeat: [ out nextPut: (ZTimestamp now - (60*60*24*265) atRandom seconds) ] ]. 64 timesRepeat: [ timestamps sorted ]. timestamps sort. timestamps collect: [ :each | timestamps includes: each ] ] timeToRun. => "0:00:00:00.07" Looking at this with the Time Profiler, I see that DateAndTime>>#asSeconds (used in #<) takes 95% of the time. I am pretty sure we can fix this. I'll make an issue and slice later on. Sven

March 27, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] DateAndTime>>#= slow?

by Johan Brichau

On 27 Mar 2014, at 11:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > It is slow(er) in 2 and fast(er) in 3, according to this discussion and my reading of the code. If you see the inverse, than please provide some details. We come from Pharo 1.4, where our timing benchmarks that use a lot of DateAndTime operations run 4x faster (in Gemstone too). It is indeed faster in 3 than in 2. (I believe because of a wait in de DateAndTime creation that has to do with clock precision). Johan

March 27, 2014