- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo Stabilization Sprint

by Guillermo Polito

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > On 2012-09-03, at 16:36, "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > > > > > Camillo Bruni-3 wrote > >> > >> Whoever wants to join is welcome ;). > >> > > > > I should be able to help remotely from NY... maybe we can coordinate via > > skype or irc... > > sure :) I think the first step is to write tests which expose the bugs in > the current > system. Currently it looks like the system is absolutely stable since we > have almost > all the tests green, BEWARE, it's not :D. > > so sure, I'll have my skype open for all those who want to join in > > skype: camillobruni > Mine is guillermopolito!

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo Stabilization Sprint

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-03, at 16:36, "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > > Camillo Bruni-3 wrote >> >> Whoever wants to join is welcome ;). >> > > I should be able to help remotely from NY... maybe we can coordinate via > skype or irc... sure :) I think the first step is to write tests which expose the bugs in the current system. Currently it looks like the system is absolutely stable since we have almost all the tests green, BEWARE, it's not :D. so sure, I'll have my skype open for all those who want to join in skype: camillobruni

Sept. 3, 2012

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

by Javier PimÃ¡s

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. Cheers, Javier. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>wrote: > > feldti wrote > > > > 0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore > > memory oriented). > > ... > > it's not an index, its an byte-offset from > > the beginning of the memory. > > I defer to those who have experience working in the C domain (not me for a > long time, thank goodness). And, please if we decide to use 1-based, call > it > something other than index, which already has a meaning in our domain. > Offset sounds good. > > - S > > > > -- > 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. > > -- Lic. Javier PimÃ¡s Ciudad de Buenos Aires

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo Stabilization Sprint

by Sean P. DeNigris

Camillo Bruni-3 wrote > > Whoever wants to join is welcome ;). > I should be able to help remotely from NY... maybe we can coordinate via skype or irc... -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Stabilization-Sprint-tp4645941p4645944.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

feldti wrote > > 0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore > memory oriented). > ... > it's not an index, its an byte-offset from > the beginning of the memory. I defer to those who have experience working in the C domain (not me for a long time, thank goodness). And, please if we decide to use 1-based, call it something other than index, which already has a meaning in our domain. Offset sounds good. - S -- 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

[Pharo-project] Pharo Stabilization Sprint

by Camillo Bruni

We will do a small sprint this week to stabilize the current 2.0 branch ---------------------------------------- TIME: Wednesday 2012-09-05 10-18 MEZ LOCATION: RMoD Lille ---------------------------------------- Whoever wants to join is welcome ;). best cami

Sept. 3, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] What happens with Warning when running in headless image (2.0)?

by GastÃ³n Dall' Oglio

I evaluate Deprecation compileAll and later Compiler recompileAll and no changes. 2012/8/31 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> > On 31 August 2012 23:22, GastÃ³n Dall' Oglio <gaston.dalloglio(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > I created two bug entries: > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=6624 > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=6625 > > > btw, can you try one thing: try to recompile the Deprecation class. > > > > > 2012/8/31 GastÃ³n Dall' Oglio <gaston.dalloglio(a)gmail.com> > >> > >> Ok thanks for reply anyway. Really I don't have hurry (I fixed that > with a > >> horrible code I wrote), I just want report that issue. > >> > >> > >> 2012/8/31 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> > >>> > >>> On 31 August 2012 15:24, GastÃ³n Dall' Oglio < > gaston.dalloglio(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi Igor. > >>> > > >>> > Here, in a linux box, I guess that this warning occurs and raise the > >>> > NonInteractiveUIManager exception, and is showed in stdout when I run > >>> > in > >>> > headless mode. > >>> > > >>> you'd better wait for Camillo's reply then. > >>> Because originally, i wrote that code , so it was ignoring warnings. > >>> Then Camillo is added some steroids to it, so an image(s) became far > >>> more friendly to consoles, > >>> including headless mode. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > 2012/8/31 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> > >>> >> > >>> >> in headless mode all warnings are suppressed (so they don't > >>> >> interfere). > >>> >> i'm not sure if it prints something on stdout.. > >>> >> it could be that it simply ignored and continues running the stuff. > >>> >> > >>> >> On 31 August 2012 14:11, GastÃ³n Dall' Oglio > >>> >> <gaston.dalloglio(a)gmail.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > Hello. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I install Seaside in a Pharo 1.4 summer image. Then I run it in > >>> >> > headless > >>> >> > from console and I go to the /status app, and a > >>> >> > "MessageNotUnderstood: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > NonInteractiveUIManager>>openDebuggerOn:context:label:contents:fullView:" > >>> >> > exception occurs and the vm close. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Then I run this image in gui and an "Deprecation: The method > >>> >> > SmalltalkImage>>isRunningCog has been deprecated." dialog box are > >>> >> > raised. I > >>> >> > evaluate Deprecation raiseWarning: false but no take effect, the > >>> >> > dialog > >>> >> > is > >>> >> > raised anyway. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Maybe another is correct way to disable raise deprecation? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > 2012/8/31 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> if run from the command line you should get a decent error > >>> >> >> message... > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> what kind of error do you get? > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> BTW: just show me the code and I'll fix it :P > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> On 2012-08-31, at 07:24, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com> > wrote: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I'm running a headless pharo2.0 from a script and the vm > >>> >> >> > disappears > >>> >> >> > without a trace (no pharodebug.log info etc.) ... when I run > the > >>> >> >> > script in a > >>> >> >> > gui, I see that a warning dialog box is popping up, so perhaps > >>> >> >> > this > >>> >> >> > is the > >>> >> >> > source of the issue? ... or perhaps it's something else? > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Dale > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Best regards, > >>> >> Igor Stasenko. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Igor Stasenko. > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >

Sept. 3, 2012

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

by Peter Hugosson-Miller

+1 to calling the 0-based stuff *offset* /Peter On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ok. so i shall convert them all to 0-based. > and then carefully look over the code and get rid of 1-based assumption. > > On 3 September 2012 11:58, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Igor, > > > > I am also used to the 0-based when dealing with C-stuff. > > > > Cheers, > > > > #Luc > > > > > > > > > > 2012/9/3 Marten Feldtmann <marten(a)schrievkrom.de> > >> > >> Hello Igor, > >> > >> 0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore > memory > >> oriented). > >> > >> Another way to see this is: it's not an index, its an byte-offset from > the > >> beginning of the memory. Therefore I would not name the parameter as > >> something like index, but more like zeroBasedOffset. By the way: > VASmalltalk > >> does it the same way. > >> > >> The same problem might occur, when dealing with pointers to array of > >> primitive data types in ByteArray or instances of NBExternalAddress. > >> > >> Even here I would suggest using zero based index structures - though it > is > >> contrary to Smalltalk typical 0ne-based array index. In VASmalltalk this > >> situation is zero-based access and the parameter is not a byte index, > but a > >> data element index. And an index of "0" returns the start of the array > (and > >> the first element). > >> > >> Marten > >> > >> Am 03.09.2012 02:28, schrieb Igor Stasenko: > >> > >>> Hi, there > >>> > >>> > >>> i added a bunch of accessors to ByteArray and NBExternalAddress which > >>> having uniform look: > >>> > >>> nb<type>At: > >>> nb<type>At: put: > >>> > >>> where types are: > >>> > >>> {U}Int<8/16/32/64> > >>> or > >>> Float<32/64> > >>> > >>> the problem is that indexes in ByteArray are 1-based, > >>> but in NBExternalAddress is 0-based. > >>> > >>> And there's already different places in code which following these > rules. > >>> But i feel like this should be uniform (so same piece of code can be > >>> used for either bytearrays or external addresses), > >>> to avoid confusion and mistakes. > >>> > >>> i just not sure which one to leave: 1-based or 0-based ? > >>> > >>> From one side, all collections in smalltalk is 1-based.. > >>> but from other side accessing memory at 1-based offset looks also > >>> unnatural. > >>> > >>> What you think? > >>> > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >

Sept. 3, 2012

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

by Igor Stasenko

ok. so i shall convert them all to 0-based. and then carefully look over the code and get rid of 1-based assumption. On 3 September 2012 11:58, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Igor, > > I am also used to the 0-based when dealing with C-stuff. > > Cheers, > > #Luc > > > > > 2012/9/3 Marten Feldtmann <marten(a)schrievkrom.de> >> >> Hello Igor, >> >> 0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore memory >> oriented). >> >> Another way to see this is: it's not an index, its an byte-offset from the >> beginning of the memory. Therefore I would not name the parameter as >> something like index, but more like zeroBasedOffset. By the way: VASmalltalk >> does it the same way. >> >> The same problem might occur, when dealing with pointers to array of >> primitive data types in ByteArray or instances of NBExternalAddress. >> >> Even here I would suggest using zero based index structures - though it is >> contrary to Smalltalk typical 0ne-based array index. In VASmalltalk this >> situation is zero-based access and the parameter is not a byte index, but a >> data element index. And an index of "0" returns the start of the array (and >> the first element). >> >> Marten >> >> Am 03.09.2012 02:28, schrieb Igor Stasenko: >> >>> Hi, there >>> >>> >>> i added a bunch of accessors to ByteArray and NBExternalAddress which >>> having uniform look: >>> >>> nb<type>At: >>> nb<type>At: put: >>> >>> where types are: >>> >>> {U}Int<8/16/32/64> >>> or >>> Float<32/64> >>> >>> the problem is that indexes in ByteArray are 1-based, >>> but in NBExternalAddress is 0-based. >>> >>> And there's already different places in code which following these rules. >>> But i feel like this should be uniform (so same piece of code can be >>> used for either bytearrays or external addresses), >>> to avoid confusion and mistakes. >>> >>> i just not sure which one to leave: 1-based or 0-based ? >>> >>> From one side, all collections in smalltalk is 1-based.. >>> but from other side accessing memory at 1-based offset looks also >>> unnatural. >>> >>> What you think? >>> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 3, 2012

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

by Luc Fabresse

Hi Igor, I am also used to the 0-based when dealing with C-stuff. Cheers, #Luc 2012/9/3 Marten Feldtmann <marten(a)schrievkrom.de> > Hello Igor, > > 0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore memory > oriented). > > Another way to see this is: it's not an index, its an byte-offset from the > beginning of the memory. Therefore I would not name the parameter as > something like index, but more like zeroBasedOffset. By the way: > VASmalltalk does it the same way. > > The same problem might occur, when dealing with pointers to array of > primitive data types in ByteArray or instances of NBExternalAddress. > > Even here I would suggest using zero based index structures - though it is > contrary to Smalltalk typical 0ne-based array index. In VASmalltalk this > situation is zero-based access and the parameter is not a byte index, but a > data element index. And an index of "0" returns the start of the array (and > the first element). > > Marten > > Am 03.09.2012 02:28, schrieb Igor Stasenko: > > Hi, there >> >> >> i added a bunch of accessors to ByteArray and NBExternalAddress which >> having uniform look: >> >> nb<type>At: >> nb<type>At: put: >> >> where types are: >> >> {U}Int<8/16/32/64> >> or >> Float<32/64> >> >> the problem is that indexes in ByteArray are 1-based, >> but in NBExternalAddress is 0-based. >> >> And there's already different places in code which following these rules. >> But i feel like this should be uniform (so same piece of code can be >> used for either bytearrays or external addresses), >> to avoid confusion and mistakes. >> >> i just not sure which one to leave: 1-based or 0-based ? >> >> From one side, all collections in smalltalk is 1-based.. >> but from other side accessing memory at 1-based offset looks also >> unnatural. >> >> What you think? >> >>

Sept. 3, 2012