- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Igor Stasenko

actually, while it is important to have uniformity with those accessors, after introduction of array types, it will be less important.. I plan to do the same as with NBExternalTypeValue.. something like: myArrayType := NBExternalTypeArray ofType: 'int'. myArray := myArrayType new: 10 . "array of 10 ints" myArray at:1 put: 20 myArray at: 2 myArray do: [... ] etc and here there's no longer need to bother whether we use 0-based or 1-based indexes, because it is out of the question: we should use 1-based indexes, because these guys will inherit everything from ArrayedCollection class, and can be used as normal collections. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] How to create a basic OS for the Raspberry Pi - VM+Pharo on top?

by S Krish

I am sure you should be able to run Tiny Core linux ( vanilla without WM) on Raspberry.. add Pharo ... Pharo + TCL works perfectly fine.. in the meagre runs I have done.. Should be a better WM than what they currently have for TCL.. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>wrote: > Check > > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/freshers/raspberrypi/tutorials/os/ > > Now, how hard would it be to get a stack VM and an image running on top? > Anyone looking at this kind of stuff in the community? > > Phil > >

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Igor Stasenko wrote > > just try to type it youself and listen what you feel :) > Zen and the Art of Pharo Smalltalk -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Igor Stasenko

On 3 September 2012 17:09, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > > Igor Stasenko wrote >> >> for me it is not a problem, since 'nb' prefix kinda already says >> something , like 'watch it, you entering different domain here'.. > > Ahh... I see. In that case, I retract what I said... I have no opinion here > :) > just imagine you need to write a code which reads raw integer(s) from either byte array(s) or external address. so, you will need to write either: bytarray nbUInt64AtOffset: 10 put: 20 or bytearray nbUInt64At: 10 put: 20. from other side, i thinking maybe Javier is right.. because after just typing two of the above, i have an intuitive feeling that whenever selector ends with 'At:' it should be about working with a single element in array (and therefore a keyword argument i need to pass should be a element index, which as we know in smalltalk should be 1-based).. In contrast, if keyword ends with 'Offset' word, it is absolutely clear that it is not about fetching an element from array. Even more, ending with At: is still leaves room for guessing, like, does that argument is then multiplied with type size or not, i.e. nbUInt64At: 8 --> a real memory offset will be 8*8 while for nbUInt8At: 8 --> a real memory offset will be 1*8 so, i vote for bytarray nbUInt64AtOffset: 10 put: 20 form, despite that i don't like that it is more longer. But it is explicit one. just try to type it youself and listen what you feel :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Esteban Lorenzano

the change of domain is subtle... "nb" means C conventions? I think that's a knowledge that will be lost with time. +1 offset, even if it is larger :) On Sep 3, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Guido Chari <charig(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I vote for atOffset because it could be a good way of imposing (or recomending to be more light) like a cultural way of naming zero indexed domains that are much more than only NB. > > 2012/9/3 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > > Igor Stasenko wrote > > > > for me it is not a problem, since 'nb' prefix kinda already says > > something , like 'watch it, you entering different domain here'.. > > Ahh... I see. In that case, I retract what I said... I have no opinion here > :) > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo Stabilization Sprint

by Guido Chari

I would love to participate, but this wed its not possibe since i have already a commitment for the morning and at my afternoon you would not be there. But i like very much the idea of being able to remotely participate, i hope to join you the next. 2012/9/3 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > > Guillermo Polito wrote > > > > Mine is guillermopolito! > > > > I'm sean.denigris > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Stabilization-Sprint-tp4645941p4645951.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Guido Chari

I vote for atOffset because it could be a good way of imposing (or recomending to be more light) like a cultural way of naming zero indexed domains that are much more than only NB. 2012/9/3 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > > Igor Stasenko wrote > > > > for me it is not a problem, since 'nb' prefix kinda already says > > something , like 'watch it, you entering different domain here'.. > > Ahh... I see. In that case, I retract what I said... I have no opinion here > :) > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo Stabilization Sprint

by Sean P. DeNigris

Guillermo Polito wrote > > Mine is guillermopolito! > I'm sean.denigris -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Stabilization-Sprint-tp4645941p4645951.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Igor Stasenko wrote > > for me it is not a problem, since 'nb' prefix kinda already says > something , like 'watch it, you entering different domain here'.. Ahh... I see. In that case, I retract what I said... I have no opinion here :) -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [NativeBoost] Question: zero-based or one-based indexes?

by Igor Stasenko

On 3 September 2012 16:45, Javier PimÃ¡s <elpochodelagente(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Here we use a convention of naming 0 based accessors with atOffset: and > atOffset:put:. If applicable, this could be a good tradeoff. Of course, the > arguments are simple integers, but the 0 index gets explicit by the > selector. > mmm.. this is more explicit, i agree, but then all selector names will get longer. In our case we're talking about bunch of selectors where first keyword denotes a type: nbFloat32At: nbFloat64At: nbInt16At: .... nbUInt32At: ... etc for me it is not a problem, since 'nb' prefix kinda already says something , like 'watch it, you entering different domain here'.. And , of course renaming 'index' to 'offset' for argument names will also can serve for clarity.. (sure thing you won't see the method's argument name while coding unless you browse the implementation). So, maybe it is not necessarily? So, lets vote for the final form and then i will put it all in uniform way everywhere. foo nbInt64At: 0 vs foo nbInt64AtOffset: 0 what is your pick? -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 3, 2012