- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk

by Frank Shearar

On 18 April 2012 17:38, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > > Frank Shearar-3 wrote >> >> "Stable version of foo relative to bar" means a having a >> ConfigurationOfFooForPharo13, ConfigurationOfFooForPharo14, >> ConfigurationOfFooForSqueak44, and so on. >> > > Now that we have symbolic platforms in Metacello, one configuration > specifies what to load for Pharo 1.3 vs. 1.4 vs. Squeak 4.4. Why would you > make separate configs? The great thing about Metacello is that I can drop > the config on any supported image and have it do the right thing... Sure. You can have N dead simple configurations or one complex configuration with N platforms. My point still stands: it's not Metacello's fault. frank > Sean > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/gamedev-net-post-asking-about-Smalltalk-tp4559039p456… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

April 18, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

YES!!!!!! That's what we need. The package system must know what to do and do the correct thing in context, or it is (sorry) more trouble than it's worth. Bill ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Sean P. DeNigris [sean(a)clipperadams.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:38 PM To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk Frank Shearar-3 wrote > > "Stable version of foo relative to bar" means a having a > ConfigurationOfFooForPharo13, ConfigurationOfFooForPharo14, > ConfigurationOfFooForSqueak44, and so on. > Now that we have symbolic platforms in Metacello, one configuration specifies what to load for Pharo 1.3 vs. 1.4 vs. Squeak 4.4. Why would you make separate configs? The great thing about Metacello is that I can drop the config on any supported image and have it do the right thing... Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/gamedev-net-post-asking-about-Smalltalk-tp4559039p456… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 18, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk

by Sean P. DeNigris

Frank Shearar-3 wrote > > "Stable version of foo relative to bar" means a having a > ConfigurationOfFooForPharo13, ConfigurationOfFooForPharo14, > ConfigurationOfFooForSqueak44, and so on. > Now that we have symbolic platforms in Metacello, one configuration specifies what to load for Pharo 1.3 vs. 1.4 vs. Squeak 4.4. Why would you make separate configs? The great thing about Metacello is that I can drop the config on any supported image and have it do the right thing... Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/gamedev-net-post-asking-about-Smalltalk-tp4559039p456… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 18, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Debugger code edits lost?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Ok, it's not just me... ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Frank Shearar [frank.shearar(a)gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:33 PM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Debugger code edits lost? On 18 April 2012 17:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> wrote: > Please do not ask me how to reproduce this... :) Actually, I *think* it > might be triggered by certain types of syntax errors. Bottom line is that > the sometime I do a fair bit of coding in the debugger, only to find that > the fruits of my labor went to oblivion and beyond. Gone - no trace of it. > It has happened enough that that I believe there are legs to it. > > Has anyone else seen it? Yes, many times. In Squeak, so it might well be in those parts still common to both. I happened to be working with partial continuations, so I was actively hacking the stack in which I was debugging, but I've seen it occasionally elsewhere too. You edit the method, accept, restart... and if you open a Browser on that method the method's unchanged and versions shows no trace of your edit. frank

April 18, 2012

[Pharo-project] Good news / bad news

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

The attached represents success (I think/hope<g>) with getting GSL to fit a Gaussian plus a line to some data. I hope to use this to measure widths of peaks in FFTs of specific signals. The bad news is that I can't get Alien callbacks to work. Actually, the callbacks seem to work just fine, but I get "invalid number of arguments" and other errors as the function that calls the callbacks is either finishing up, close to that, or returns. FWIW, that call is made via FFI. The nature of the problem is not clear, and I lack the vm skill to reasonably think I could debug it. Using C functions to define the residuals and jacobians works perfectly, so I am on the (presumptuous) edge of thinking that my code is not the problem. Any ideas? Bill

April 18, 2012

[Pharo-project] OB, Refactoring, and OCompletion in 1.4

by Sean P. DeNigris

The Welcome window points to the config browser, which loads basic OB (no refactoring). I was expecting to have refactoring installed, which is done via (per http://forum.world.st/ANN-new-stable-version-of-omnibrowser-td4525968.html#…) (ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser project version: #stable) load: #( 'Dev' 'Dev Tests'). This scripts installs OmniBrowser + OCompletion + Refactoring Browser The above works, but maybe this is a problem because it's using the old OCompletion? Then I tried to load NewOCompletion to see if it played nicely with OB, and got: "Error: Could not resolve: ConfigurationOfNewECompletion [ConfigurationOfNewECompletion] in /.../Pharo-1.4/package-cache". So I loaded ConfigurationOfNewECompletion manually in the MC browser, and then ran into "MessageNotUnderstood: NOCCompletionTable class>>methodChanged:" So there are some problems with the configs for the new completion work... and if these new tools work with OB, maybe the config for OB should be updated to use them, and then maybe the default group of the OB config should load 'Dev'... Sean Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/OB-Refactoring-and-OCompletion-in-1-4-tp4568254p45682… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 18, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Debugger code edits lost?

by Frank Shearar

On 18 April 2012 17:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> wrote: > Please do not ask me how to reproduce this... :)Â Actually, I *think* it > might be triggered by certain types of syntax errors.Â Bottom line is that > the sometime I do a fair bit of coding in the debugger, only to find that > the fruits of my labor went to oblivion and beyond.Â Gone - no trace of it. > It has happened enough that that I believe there are legs to it. > > Has anyone else seen it? Yes, many times. In Squeak, so it might well be in those parts still common to both. I happened to be working with partial continuations, so I was actively hacking the stack in which I was debugging, but I've seen it occasionally elsewhere too. You edit the method, accept, restart... and if you open a Browser on that method the method's unchanged and versions shows no trace of your edit. frank

April 18, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk

by Frank Shearar

On 18 April 2012 17:19, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> wrote: > Stef, > > What about stable relative to a given version of Pharo? Â I *really* think that to be useful, Metacello needs to be consistent. Â As it is, one seems to be left looking at blessings and guessing at what might work. Â The current and occasional (and very helpful) "no, use THIS version..." is appreciated, but hardly grounds for success. "Stable version of foo relative to bar" means a having a ConfigurationOfFooForPharo13, ConfigurationOfFooForPharo14, ConfigurationOfFooForSqueak44, and so on. That people don't write these configurations is not a failing of Metacello. frank > Bill > > > ________________________________________ > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of StÃ©phane Ducasse [stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:50 AM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk > > No stable measn stable and this is good > Development means that you are developing and that people use at their own risk > > Use stable to milestone. > This way clients can work on your stable versions and milestone too their software. > > On Apr 16, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> yes, we need to invent some conventions. Because different developers >> using different names and different labels for configuration versions. >> for instance, i avoid labeling versions as #stable , most of them are >> #development.. >> for this reason, #lastVersion, #latestVersion loads either outdated >> stuff, or even worse, a baseline.. > > >

April 18, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Stef, What about stable relative to a given version of Pharo? I *really* think that to be useful, Metacello needs to be consistent. As it is, one seems to be left looking at blessings and guessing at what might work. The current and occasional (and very helpful) "no, use THIS version..." is appreciated, but hardly grounds for success. Bill ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of StÃ©phane Ducasse [stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:50 AM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk No stable measn stable and this is good Development means that you are developing and that people use at their own risk Use stable to milestone. This way clients can work on your stable versions and milestone too their software. On Apr 16, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > yes, we need to invent some conventions. Because different developers > using different names and different labels for configuration versions. > for instance, i avoid labeling versions as #stable , most of them are > #development.. > for this reason, #lastVersion, #latestVersion loads either outdated > stuff, or even worse, a baseline..

April 18, 2012

[Pharo-project] Debugger code edits lost?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Please do not ask me how to reproduce this... :) Actually, I *think* it might be triggered by certain types of syntax errors. Bottom line is that the sometime I do a fair bit of coding in the debugger, only to find that the fruits of my labor went to oblivion and beyond. Gone - no trace of it. It has happened enough that that I believe there are legs to it. Has anyone else seen it?

April 18, 2012