- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] clean, please

by Norbert Hartl

Am 22.05.2013 um 20:06 schrieb Paul Davidowitz <pdavidow(a)fastmail.fm>: > I was referring to text used in this mailing list, particularly words of > the form *u** > I like to agree that using them shouldn't be a common case. I don't have a problem if there are rare occurrences of them. And I see this list that way. One thing I like about this community is that emotional explosions are not prohibited. Most of the people here understand that this happens sometimes and they try to read what is behind it instead of blaming unpoliteness. I consider this as something healthy. my 2 cents, Norbert

May 22, 2013

MC should really write snaphsot/source.st in UTF8

by Nicolas Cellier

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16645848/squeak-monticello-character-enc… Let's kill this one, it's totally insane

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] could we rename ensureDeleted into ensureDelete?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Camillo Bruni-3 wrote > because it is the final state, the file is deleted. > it emerged out of a longer discussion with sean, mariano and me I think Yes, we discussed thoroughly in the ml [1] (you were a part, but it was a while back). The objection, which I came to agree with, was that you're not "ensuring delete" because it may not be deleted (e.g. if it never existed). [1] http://forum.world.st/FileReference-should-throw-error-when-deleting-unexis… ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-dev-could-we-rename-ensureDeleted-into-ensureDe… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] TxText new version 0.8

by Denis Kudriashov

2013/5/23 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > > On 2013-05-22, at 22:11, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2013/5/22 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > > > >> > >> On 2013-05-22, at 21:04, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On May 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 22 May 2013 10:38, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > >> wrote: > >>>>> I would use > >>>>> > >>>>> TextModelCore > >>>>> TextModelExtensions > >>>>> > >>>>> TextModelCore-Tests > >>>>> > >>>>> No extra dash in the middle. > >>>> > >>>> nooooo :) > >>>> > >>>> But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good. > >>>> For package: > >>>> > >>>> Package-Name-Tick-Tack > >>>> > >>>> tests should be in: > >>>> > >>>> Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests > >>>> > >>>> This convention used everywhere in pharo. > >>> > >>> Please do not do that :). > >>> > >>> If you do that, publishing Package-Name-Tick-Tack will publish the code > >> from Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests, too :). Why? Because we have a lovely > >> implicit one-to-many mapping. > >>> > >>> So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a discriminator before > >> the variable part of your code. So, something like: > >>> - BaseName-Core > >>> - BaseName-Tests-Core > >>> > >>> But, the rule I apply more recently for code is to use - only for > >> categories, and camel case for the Monticello packages. Like this we > also > >> document what is the unit of publishing, thus when you look into the > code > >> browser we also know what is mapped on a Monticello package. > >> > >> I would love to change that rule. I think Tests have the same value as > the > >> code itself. > >> The only reason to not load the code is the load time for the > >> configuration. Which is > >> basically is unimportant if you have a CI server preparing images for > you. > >> > >> I can only speak for smaller projects, but I really do not sea a reason > to > >> not load tests... > >> > > > > Because tests not needed to run your application. > > technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code: > - class comments > - method comments > - any documentation in general > And I don't have it at production because I don't have changes file here. > yet you load them. so I wonder if it makes sense to even load tests > separately? > It make sense when you try to reduce production image size. And loading only required packages (without tests) works well. Why change it?

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] whitespace theme (work in progress)

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Yes, yes, cool ! Excellent experiment. On 22 May 2013, at 22:09, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to let you know that I started to work on a Pharo theme that maximizes whitespace. > > It is based on the default Glamour theme, but it is even simpler. It is still a work in progress as several things I would like to achieve are not easily possible with the existing morphs' implementation. > > Still you can see the direction in a couple of screenshots at (plus a couple of explanations): > http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/whitespace-theme-for-pharo-work-in-progress > > You can play with it in a Moose 4.8 image by: > > MooseImageSetupCommandLineHandler new > installFonts; > installAthens; > installGLMWhitespaceTheme. > > Cheers, > Doru >

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] TxText new version 0.8

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-05-22, at 22:11, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/5/22 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > >> >> On 2013-05-22, at 21:04, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On May 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 22 May 2013 10:38, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> >> wrote: >>>>> I would use >>>>> >>>>> TextModelCore >>>>> TextModelExtensions >>>>> >>>>> TextModelCore-Tests >>>>> >>>>> No extra dash in the middle. >>>> >>>> nooooo :) >>>> >>>> But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good. >>>> For package: >>>> >>>> Package-Name-Tick-Tack >>>> >>>> tests should be in: >>>> >>>> Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests >>>> >>>> This convention used everywhere in pharo. >>> >>> Please do not do that :). >>> >>> If you do that, publishing Package-Name-Tick-Tack will publish the code >> from Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests, too :). Why? Because we have a lovely >> implicit one-to-many mapping. >>> >>> So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a discriminator before >> the variable part of your code. So, something like: >>> - BaseName-Core >>> - BaseName-Tests-Core >>> >>> But, the rule I apply more recently for code is to use - only for >> categories, and camel case for the Monticello packages. Like this we also >> document what is the unit of publishing, thus when you look into the code >> browser we also know what is mapped on a Monticello package. >> >> I would love to change that rule. I think Tests have the same value as the >> code itself. >> The only reason to not load the code is the load time for the >> configuration. Which is >> basically is unimportant if you have a CI server preparing images for you. >> >> I can only speak for smaller projects, but I really do not sea a reason to >> not load tests... >> > > Because tests not needed to run your application. technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code: - class comments - method comments - any documentation in general yet you load them. so I wonder if it makes sense to even load tests separately?

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] TxText new version 0.8

by Denis Kudriashov

2013/5/22 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > > On 2013-05-22, at 21:04, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On May 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 22 May 2013 10:38, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > >>> I would use > >>> > >>> TextModelCore > >>> TextModelExtensions > >>> > >>> TextModelCore-Tests > >>> > >>> No extra dash in the middle. > >> > >> nooooo :) > >> > >> But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good. > >> For package: > >> > >> Package-Name-Tick-Tack > >> > >> tests should be in: > >> > >> Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests > >> > >> This convention used everywhere in pharo. > > > > Please do not do that :). > > > > If you do that, publishing Package-Name-Tick-Tack will publish the code > from Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests, too :). Why? Because we have a lovely > implicit one-to-many mapping. > > > > So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a discriminator before > the variable part of your code. So, something like: > > - BaseName-Core > > - BaseName-Tests-Core > > > > But, the rule I apply more recently for code is to use - only for > categories, and camel case for the Monticello packages. Like this we also > document what is the unit of publishing, thus when you look into the code > browser we also know what is mapped on a Monticello package. > > I would love to change that rule. I think Tests have the same value as the > code itself. > The only reason to not load the code is the load time for the > configuration. Which is > basically is unimportant if you have a CI server preparing images for you. > > I can only speak for smaller projects, but I really do not sea a reason to > not load tests... > Because tests not needed to run your application.

May 22, 2013

whitespace theme (work in progress)

by Tudor Girba

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I started to work on a Pharo theme that maximizes whitespace. It is based on the default Glamour theme, but it is even simpler. It is still a work in progress as several things I would like to achieve are not easily possible with the existing morphs' implementation. Still you can see the direction in a couple of screenshots at (plus a couple of explanations): http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/whitespace-theme-for-pharo-work-in-progress You can play with it in a Moose 4.8 image by: MooseImageSetupCommandLineHandler new installFonts; installAthens; installGLMWhitespaceTheme. Cheers, Doru

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] TxText new version 0.8

by Denis Kudriashov

2013/5/22 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> > On 22 May 2013 10:38, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > I would use > > > > TextModelCore > > TextModelExtensions > > > > TextModelCore-Tests > > > > No extra dash in the middle. > > nooooo :) > > But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good. > For package: > > Package-Name-Tick-Tack > > tests should be in: > > Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests > How it works? Monticello include all subcategories of package. And with this example tests will be part of package Package-Name-Tick-Tack. I test similar example at Pharo 2.0 > > This convention used everywhere in pharo. > > > Stef > > > > On May 21, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 2013/5/21 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr> > >> > >> > >> On May 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> 2013/5/20 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello. > >>> > >>> New TxText version 0.8 is ready: > >>> > >>> - editor stuff extracted to separate packages TxText-Editor and > >>> TxTextTests-Editor > >>> > >>> may be you should call the second package TxTextEditor-Tests > >> > >> > >> I just follow convention of other TxText packages: TxText-Model -> > >> TxTextTests-Model, TxText-Layout -> TxTextTests-Layout and etc. > >> Some times ago I suggest such repackaging and nobody was against it > >> > >> > >> Still I think that the packages names are not good. I do not hitnk that > >> having tests mixed with the package name is a good approach > >> and we should clean all of them for 3.0 > > > > > > So what the correct way (Pharo way) to name test packages? > > For example I have 'MyPackage-SubCat1-SubCat2'. What name for test > package > > should be? > > > >> > >> > >> Stef > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] clean, please

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-05-22, at 21:47, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Haha, maybe we should switch to swearing in other languages to honour the international character of the community ? nuff trolling for today :P > But, yes, clean code is paramount ! > > To come back to a previous discussion: clean code and good design are more important than method comments, class comments are indispensable IMO. yes please ;) I have the same priorities ;)

May 22, 2013