- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Help updating confs and building Pharo 1.3

by Alexandre Bergel

> Yes, but some packages/projects do NOT have author...so someone needs to do it anyway ;) > And another good thing is to start testing your OWN projects on top of Pharo 1.3 now. Not necessary what is included in the dev. So that we can spot problems right now. Ok. > What are the conf where I am personally involved? Out of my memory there is MemoryMonitor. Is there more? > > > Maybe with Metacello and ProfStef ? > For example, for Metacello, if we need to include the MetacelloBrowser, but do I need to include in the baseline of ConfigurationOfPharo ? I will take care of the bug with ProfStef. Dale prefers to wait a bit before for the browser. So, let's wait. Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

> give a try and see. I think that this is important. Yes it is. > We can even publish something out of it :) That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) Alexandre > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>> >>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>> private method is just another's public??? >> >> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >> >>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>> >>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>> please); I'll be the first in line. >> >> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Help updating confs and building Pharo 1.3

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi Mariano, > What I need is that people: > > - update all the confs that are not yet updated to work on Pharo 1.3 > - test them > - report if there are problems. I am not sure how I can help you. I think that this is the responsibility of the author to take care of this. What are the conf where I am personally involved? Out of my memory there is MemoryMonitor. Is there more? It would be cool to have a page that says what are the responsibilities of each of us. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Public/private categories would a lot of sense if methods could belong to more than one category. Dolphin allows that, and it's *really* nice. ________________________________________ 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: Sunday, April 24, 2011 12:37 PM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class? On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> give a try and see. I think that this is important. > > Yes it is. > >> We can even publish something out of it :) > > That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) ;-) so even better. > > Alexandre > >> >> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> >>>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>>> >>>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>>> private method is just another's public??? >>> >>> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >>> >>>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>>> >>>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>>> please); I'll be the first in line. >>> >>> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > >

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Error with latest ProfStef in Pharo 1.3

by Alexandre Bergel

ah ah! This is what we have changed during the pharo cast. Laurent, do you want that we have a look at it together? Cheers, Alexandre On 24 Apr 2011, at 11:30, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > "Error 'Please use buildTutorialTopicFor: instead'" > > when I try to open it from the menu. > > ProfStefHelpTutorialBuilder >> buildHelpTopicFrom: aHelpTopicDescription > "Start building from the given help topic description" > > ^(self new) > rootToBuildFrom: aHelpTopicDescription; > build; > topicToBuild > > the rpoblem is that #new > > I am using last versions of Pharo1.3 > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> give a try and see. I think that this is important. > > Yes it is. > >> We can even publish something out of it :) > > That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) ;-) so even better. > > Alexandre > >> >> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> >>>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>>> >>>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>>> private method is just another's public??? >>> >>> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >>> >>>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>>> >>>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>>> please); I'll be the first in line. >>> >>> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > >

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Henrik should we include Settings-Sound ?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

ok go for it and we will see :) On Apr 24, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > yes, but this package Setttings is only the integration with the Settings browser...that's why I think we should include it. > > cheers > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > I do not remember the situation with the sound. > I think that we should clean the soundService and the rest. > But right now I'm trying to move on the package but this is a huge pain. > > Stef > > > There is the repository http://www.squeaksource.com/PharoSound > > In that repo you will see a package "Settings-Sound" which is not included in ConfigurationOfPharoSound nor in any other place. Hence, it is not included in PharoDev. > > I am just wondering if we need to include such package or not. > > Henrik is the commiter of such packages so I asked. > > > > Cheers > > > > Mariano > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > btw can you provide more context? > > You mean that it is not manage as a configuration but is referenced in pharo-dev conifguration ? > > > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > no > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:36 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > it is not? > > > > > > Stef > > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > > > I saw that package in PharoSound and I wonder if it should be added to the Metacello conf > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mariano > > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mariano > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Error with latest ProfStef in Pharo 1.3

by laurent laffont

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>wrote: > ah ah! This is what we have changed during the pharo cast. > Laurent, do you want that we have a look at it together? > haha I won't be able to look at it until Tuesday. Laurent. > > Cheers, > Alexandre > > > On 24 Apr 2011, at 11:30, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > "Error 'Please use buildTutorialTopicFor: instead'" > > > > when I try to open it from the menu. > > > > ProfStefHelpTutorialBuilder >> buildHelpTopicFrom: aHelpTopicDescription > > "Start building from the given help topic description" > > > > ^(self new) > > rootToBuildFrom: aHelpTopicDescription; > > build; > > topicToBuild > > > > the rpoblem is that #new > > > > I am using last versions of Pharo1.3 > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > >

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* > > Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and > enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to > move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's > private method is just another's public??? A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' > > Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't > trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of > following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak > modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, > please); I'll be the first in line. I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class?

by Alexandre Bergel

>> Implementation notes >> iv and their purposes > > May I ask, what if we stopped ever mentioning instance vars in the > class comment? Perhaps it's a problem of having only one place to > document both external and internal details of the class, but it > really irks me when the comment template for a newly created class > suggests that I divulge the implementation details in what appears to > be a document of the interface. Moreover, the comment must change > when the implementation changes, even if the interface remains the > same. Perhaps that's why so many class comments seem out of sync with > the current state of their classes. Indeed. Synchronizing the documentation and the code is a problem. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 24, 2011