- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> > > I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) with the same attitute, why do you do smalltalk when there is JS? Stef

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> >> >> markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you >> highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-) > > If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown. Because you learn markdown first but pier syntax predates it. and because like that we have one syntax for everything. Did you notice that the seaside book was fully written with this syntax and it WORKS!!! >>> > > Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. > On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s… > And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. > > Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. IT IS NOT A NEW SYNTAX!!! We have this neutral syntax that proved to work for real and we have exporters and with a bit of work we will be able to generate all the formats we want. So if you need epub, add a visitor and all the chapters I'm writing will be in epub too. But I will not work with a syntax that does not let me write book, html, â¦. Why because this is my time. Stef > Cheers. > Uko > >> >> -- >> Damien Cassou >> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >> >> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >> losing enthusiasm." >> Winston Churchill >> > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > This makes sense. But I have 2 opinions: > > 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? because we will have to patch it anyway because it is uncomplete (missing features for making decent book). > 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. Like what? Be precise because we can extend gutenberg to cover these needs. Because we took the previous pharo book macros and reduce the set. > Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Because with gutenberg+ we can generate - latex - markdown - html so you can add epub I do not want to eith write doc or book or html I want one format to produce them all. > Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. > > Cheers. > Uko > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 17:36, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>> Why do we need Pier-Gutenberg? Why canât we gust use ePub for example? >> >> We need a simple text based syntax (like for wiki) to write >> documentation fast (e.g., books, class comments, method comments). I >> don't know ePub, but it looks a lot like HTML, which is way too >> verbose for our needs. Gutemberg looks more like Mardown and Org-mode. >> The difference with these 2 is that everything is written in Smalltalk >> so it is easy to customize to our needs and embed in Pharo (e.g., to >> show beautiful class comments in Nautilus, just like in Amber: >> http://forum.world.st/attachment/4684866/0/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-02%20at%…) >> >> -- >> Damien Cassou >> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >> >> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >> losing enthusiasm." >> Winston Churchill >> > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] About BitBlt current -> BitBlt (Fuel)

by Mariano Martinez Peck

BTW....it is time to move the hashBits: to a more general class....but the question is where? On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > Fuel was using BitBlt current and I change that to BitBlt > > Stef > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Stef, what exactly is the influence on Fuel? I looked at the changes of > your slice and couldnât find anythingâ¦ > > > > Max > > > > > > On 25.10.2013, at 16:26, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I just pushed a change cleaning some strange usage. > >> BitBlt was sometimes invoked via BitBlt current (which just returned > the BitBlt class). > >> Apparently in Squeak they removed it too. > >> > >> Now it touches Fuel so Fuel guys can you merge on your side too? > >> > >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12009/BitBlt-current-BitBlt > >> > >> Stef > > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Yuriy Tymchuk

On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>>>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>>>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >>>> >>>> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >>>> >>>> But, >>>> >>>> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >>>> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >>>> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >>>> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >>>> >>>> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >>>> >>>> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >>>> >>>> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) >>> >>> I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) >> >> I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/ > > But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ? We can take spec of daring fireball. And extend it if we need it. Or we can use githubâs markdown. But of course I agree with you > > I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so... > > And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests. > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-10-30, at 21:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>>>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>>>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >>>> >>>> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >>>> >>>> But, >>>> >>>> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >>>> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >>>> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >>>> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >>>> >>>> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >>>> >>>> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >>>> >>>> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) >>> >>> I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) >> >> I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/ > > But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ? > > I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so... > > And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests. Sadly yes. We spent quite some time with Damien Pollet to get a better version, we ended up with a 2-pass approach to first detect blocks an then do the span analysis. This way you get quite far, but still, it is not very well defined.

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] About BitBlt current -> BitBlt (Fuel)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Fuel was using BitBlt current and I change that to BitBlt Stef On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stef, what exactly is the influence on Fuel? I looked at the changes of your slice and couldnât find anythingâ¦ > > Max > > > On 25.10.2013, at 16:26, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I just pushed a change cleaning some strange usage. >> BitBlt was sometimes invoked via BitBlt current (which just returned the BitBlt class). >> Apparently in Squeak they removed it too. >> >> Now it touches Fuel so Fuel guys can you merge on your side too? >> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12009/BitBlt-current-BitBlt >> >> Stef > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>>> >>>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >>> >>> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >>> >>> But, >>> >>> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >>> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >>> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >>> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >>> >>> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >>> >>> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >>> >>> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) >> >> I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) > > I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/ But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ? I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so... And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests.

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] About SqNumberParser

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

nay step documenting the system from its inside is good. > > - leave only the one clues that is currently used > - write down the syntax that is provided > - then one can think about what is odd and what is missing > - improve parser if needed

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] missing updates: 30503 30504

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> >> >>> Things got updated: >>> >>> The tracker job https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-1-Tracker/ has >>> now a version number check + the recent pharo version allows the #update command line handler >>> to detect if wrong update files were specified. Together with Stef's fix to always >>> merge updates the update process should now be more stable. >> Tx camillo. >> >> Pay attention that my change is to ignore conflict warning > > I am not fully sure about that, since there are two steps required: > 1. MCMergeOrLoadWarning > 2. MergeResolutionRequest > > From what I got, you only deal with the first one, indeed so this is even better :) > which asks the user if he wants > to merge or not (which for instance in git never happens). The second one actually > does the merging. I am pretty much convinced that we don't need the two of them, since > I see that we basically spread the following code all over the place: > > [aLoadBlock > on: MCMergeOrLoadWarning do: [ :request | request merge ]] > on: MCMergeResolutionRequest do: [ :request | request autoMerge ]. > > The real merge conflict is only available in the MCMergeResolutionRequest, before it > is a warning that is solely based on whether a package is dirty or not, a very crude > approximation of a conflict...

Oct. 30, 2013