- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] snapshot methods

by Igor Stasenko

On 5 December 2012 00:48, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am always confused about the snapshot behavior. > Yes, it returns true when we are in the new image, but this is far from obvious :/. > > How about a more explicit method for snapshotting and continue with different code > in the new / old image: > > > self stuffInCurrentImage. > > Smalltalk > snapshotIfNew: [ self stuffInNewImage ] > IfCurrent: [ self stuffInCurrentImage ] > > self stuffInCurrentAndNewImage. > +1 just s/image/session/g :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 5, 2012

[Pharo-project] snapshot methods

by Camillo Bruni

I am always confused about the snapshot behavior. Yes, it returns true when we are in the new image, but this is far from obvious :/. How about a more explicit method for snapshotting and continue with different code in the new / old image: self stuffInCurrentImage. Smalltalk snapshotIfNew: [ self stuffInNewImage ] IfCurrent: [ self stuffInCurrentImage ] self stuffInCurrentAndNewImage.

Dec. 4, 2012

[Pharo-project] Legacy FileDirectory

by Camillo Bruni

I finally found the motivation to properly package my compatibility package. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~dh83/fisleg/packages/FileSystem-Legacy For people who want to migrate to 2.0 but depend on FileDirectory, they can load this compatibility package for 2.0 which will add a mock FileDirectory. It will mostly forward to FileReference. This is legacy software and should only be used for migration ;) best cami

Dec. 4, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] ConfigurationOfPetitParser has broken #'common' section

by Frank Shearar

Thanks Camillo, that's done the trick. I've found _another_ problems with the configuration, but that I can fix. (The configuration only works if you have a network connection.) I'll hopefully post a fix in the very near future. frank On 4 December 2012 21:54, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hard to guess if I don't know the project :P > for me it worked you have all the parsing capabilities minus the debug UIs > > On 2012-12-04, at 18:51, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Oh, I see a minimal Petit... But isn't that going to be too small? >> Alternatively why not a ConfigurationOfGrosParser ? >> >> Nicolas >> >> 2012/12/4 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>: >>> just load the minimal group and you're fine. That's what we do in 2.0 as well... >>> >>> >>> On 2012-12-04, at 18:32, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> By "broken" I mean "it might work fine in Pharo but it doesn't in Squeak". >>>> >>>> That's because PetitParser now uses Glamour, which pulls in a whole >>>> host of things that probably don't work in Squeak. (I don't know, I >>>> haven't tried, but these are all UI things, and the UI is where Pharo >>>> and Squeak are least compatible.) >>>> >>>> I'm being a bit rude in that I don't yet have a fix for the issue. >>>> Ideally, a ConfigurationOf would have Pharo specific stuff and Squeak >>>> specific stuff in separate sections, with only the shared things >>>> (right now, not Glamour, nor its dependents) in the #'common' section. >>>> >>>> However, if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll submit a fix soon, >>>> once Squeak 4.4 is out the door. >>>> >>>> frank >>>> >>> >>> >> > >

Dec. 4, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] ConfigurationOfPetitParser has broken #'common' section

by Camillo Bruni

hard to guess if I don't know the project :P for me it worked you have all the parsing capabilities minus the debug UIs On 2012-12-04, at 18:51, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I see a minimal Petit... But isn't that going to be too small? > Alternatively why not a ConfigurationOfGrosParser ? > > Nicolas > > 2012/12/4 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>: >> just load the minimal group and you're fine. That's what we do in 2.0 as well... >> >> >> On 2012-12-04, at 18:32, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> By "broken" I mean "it might work fine in Pharo but it doesn't in Squeak". >>> >>> That's because PetitParser now uses Glamour, which pulls in a whole >>> host of things that probably don't work in Squeak. (I don't know, I >>> haven't tried, but these are all UI things, and the UI is where Pharo >>> and Squeak are least compatible.) >>> >>> I'm being a bit rude in that I don't yet have a fix for the issue. >>> Ideally, a ConfigurationOf would have Pharo specific stuff and Squeak >>> specific stuff in separate sections, with only the shared things >>> (right now, not Glamour, nor its dependents) in the #'common' section. >>> >>> However, if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll submit a fix soon, >>> once Squeak 4.4 is out the door. >>> >>> frank >>> >> >> >

Dec. 4, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] ConfigurationOfPetitParser has broken #'common' section

by Nicolas Cellier

Oh, I see a minimal Petit... But isn't that going to be too small? Alternatively why not a ConfigurationOfGrosParser ? Nicolas 2012/12/4 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>: > just load the minimal group and you're fine. That's what we do in 2.0 as well... > > > On 2012-12-04, at 18:32, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> By "broken" I mean "it might work fine in Pharo but it doesn't in Squeak". >> >> That's because PetitParser now uses Glamour, which pulls in a whole >> host of things that probably don't work in Squeak. (I don't know, I >> haven't tried, but these are all UI things, and the UI is where Pharo >> and Squeak are least compatible.) >> >> I'm being a bit rude in that I don't yet have a fix for the issue. >> Ideally, a ConfigurationOf would have Pharo specific stuff and Squeak >> specific stuff in separate sections, with only the shared things >> (right now, not Glamour, nor its dependents) in the #'common' section. >> >> However, if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll submit a fix soon, >> once Squeak 4.4 is out the door. >> >> frank >> > >

Dec. 4, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] ConfigurationOfPetitParser has broken #'common' section

by Camillo Bruni

just load the minimal group and you're fine. That's what we do in 2.0 as well... On 2012-12-04, at 18:32, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > By "broken" I mean "it might work fine in Pharo but it doesn't in Squeak". > > That's because PetitParser now uses Glamour, which pulls in a whole > host of things that probably don't work in Squeak. (I don't know, I > haven't tried, but these are all UI things, and the UI is where Pharo > and Squeak are least compatible.) > > I'm being a bit rude in that I don't yet have a fix for the issue. > Ideally, a ConfigurationOf would have Pharo specific stuff and Squeak > specific stuff in separate sections, with only the shared things > (right now, not Glamour, nor its dependents) in the #'common' section. > > However, if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll submit a fix soon, > once Squeak 4.4 is out the door. > > frank >

Dec. 4, 2012

[Pharo-project] ConfigurationOfPetitParser has broken #'common' section

by Frank Shearar

By "broken" I mean "it might work fine in Pharo but it doesn't in Squeak". That's because PetitParser now uses Glamour, which pulls in a whole host of things that probably don't work in Squeak. (I don't know, I haven't tried, but these are all UI things, and the UI is where Pharo and Squeak are least compatible.) I'm being a bit rude in that I don't yet have a fix for the issue. Ideally, a ConfigurationOf would have Pharo specific stuff and Squeak specific stuff in separate sections, with only the shared things (right now, not Glamour, nor its dependents) in the #'common' section. However, if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll submit a fix soon, once Squeak 4.4 is out the door. frank

Dec. 4, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Open Source and Constraints | Documentation is King

by Marcus Denker

On Dec 4, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen <henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no> wrote: > On 04.12.2012 12:49, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Comments are ***REEEAALLLLY*** important because they help a guy reading the code to say yes you are smart and you got it right > I will explain you why. > > Even writing comment in test is cool. > > Stef > I would go so far as to say comments in tests are *especially* important. > It's sometimes hard to tell whether a failure is due to a faulty test, or an actual bug, when you have no idea (even when looking at the code) what case the test was actually written to cover. > With a comment of what the test was intended to do, you have a better feel for how to handle it. > True, to a point. As long as later coders that alter the method/class/package either adhear to the original comments, or update the comments when they change the behaviour/intent of the code, or at the very least, delete the comment when they make significant changes that would invalidate the comment, this is true. If, on the other hand, the comments are left as is while potentially drastic changes are made, then the comments become seriously misleading. > > Not to say comments are bad - but we must all work to make sure the comments that exist stay relevant. > And of course it is important to actually change comments when someone finds a problem. "How can you change the world if you can't even change a typo in a comment?" Marcus

Dec. 4, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Open Source and Constraints | Documentation is King

by Chris Cunningham

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen < henrik.s.johansen(a)veloxit.no> wrote: > On 04.12.2012 12:49, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > >> Comments are ***REEEAALLLLY*** important because they help a guy reading >> the code to say yes you are smart and you got it right >> I will explain you why. >> >> Even writing comment in test is cool. >> >> Stef >> > I would go so far as to say comments in tests are *especially* important. > It's sometimes hard to tell whether a failure is due to a faulty test, or > an actual bug, when you have no idea (even when looking at the code) what > case the test was actually written to cover. > With a comment of what the test was intended to do, you have a better feel > for how to handle it. > True, to a point. As long as later coders that alter the method/class/package either adhear to the original comments, or update the comments when they change the behaviour/intent of the code, or at the very least, delete the comment when they make significant changes that would invalidate the comment, this is true. If, on the other hand, the comments are left as is while potentially drastic changes are made, then the comments become seriously misleading. Not to say comments are bad - but we must all work to make sure the comments that exist stay relevant. -Chris

Dec. 4, 2012