- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 3985 in pharo: Create temporary in debugger does not work for new keyword method

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #1 on issue 3985 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: Create temporary in debugger does not work for new keyword method http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3985 If it's good in 1.3 than it's fixed. (If someone wants to backport to 1.2, sunmit a fix... but we will release 1.3 soon)

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Improving Pharo's Exception Hierarchy

by Hernan Wilkinson

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Toon Verwaest <toon.verwaest(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Right, so you confirm the experience of Dale. > > In the case of flagging errors without classes, do you generally just use a > simple symbol, or concatenate strings to convey more details? This last > seems somehow a bad idea... but maybe if it's never caught it's not so > relevant? > I don't understand exactly what you mean... if you are suggesting using error codes over exceptions, no, that is not may point. Exceptions are the right tool to get rid of the repeated/error prone code you create when using error codes, there is not doubt about it. What I'm saying is that from the handling point of view you only need to identify the exception to handle, and matching the class of the exception with identifying the exception is not the only way (I showed another way in a previous mail). Also, categorizing exception types using subclassing does not seem to be a good idea either... it is common use now, but that does not mean it is good. Sometimes you want to categorize exceptions in a different way that your exception class hierarchy forces you, and when that happens it is really a pain. > > cheers, > Toon > > > On 04/14/2011 02:03 PM, Hernan Wilkinson wrote: > >> the problem is not related to technical issues (like how much machine >> memory you save, etc). It is related to knowledge organization... >> If you have two classes that define exactly the same methods, inst var, >> etc, why do you have two instead of one? If you answer is "because of the >> name of the class", remember that names are contextualized to the place >> where they are used... >> I mean, this is easy, just take all the places where exceptions are handle >> in Smalltalk and look what the handlers do with the exceptions. You will see >> that in almost all cases the exceptions are not used at all, the information >> they carry with them is not use at all... so, from a theory point of view it >> looks nice to have a big exception hierarchy but from the practical point of >> view is not only useless but also more difficult to use. >> I build a system that had an exception class base on where they were >> signal and not handled, we end up with around 1100 exceptions... only 3 or 4 >> are handled directly >> > > -- *HernÃ¡n Wilkinson Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207 email: hernan.wilkinson(a)10Pines.com site: http://www.10Pines.com <http://www.10pines.com/>*

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 4015 in pharo: Fix in SmalltalkEditor

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #2 on issue 4015 by Benjamin...(a)gmail.com: Fix in SmalltalkEditor http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4015 A new change set, in addition of the previous one Attachments: SmalltalkEditor-modelCurrentSelectedClass.st 839 bytes

April 14, 2011

[Pharo-project] [update 1.3] #13150

by Marcus Denker

13150 ----- Issue 4014: DNU for TestRunner because of #theme Issue 4011: Finder: self is not bound to class -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 4011 in pharo: Finder: self is not bound to class

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #2 on issue 4011 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: Finder: self is not bound to class http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4011 in 13150

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 4014 in pharo: DNU for TestRunner because of #theme

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Updates: Status: Closed Comment #2 on issue 4014 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: DNU for TestRunner because of #theme http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4014 in 13150

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Improving Pharo's Exception Hierarchy

by Toon Verwaest

Right, so you confirm the experience of Dale. In the case of flagging errors without classes, do you generally just use a simple symbol, or concatenate strings to convey more details? This last seems somehow a bad idea... but maybe if it's never caught it's not so relevant? cheers, Toon On 04/14/2011 02:03 PM, Hernan Wilkinson wrote: > the problem is not related to technical issues (like how much machine > memory you save, etc). It is related to knowledge organization... > If you have two classes that define exactly the same methods, inst > var, etc, why do you have two instead of one? If you answer is > "because of the name of the class", remember that names are > contextualized to the place where they are used... > I mean, this is easy, just take all the places where exceptions are > handle in Smalltalk and look what the handlers do with the exceptions. > You will see that in almost all cases the exceptions are not used at > all, the information they carry with them is not use at all... so, > from a theory point of view it looks nice to have a big exception > hierarchy but from the practical point of view is not only useless but > also more difficult to use. > I build a system that had an exception class base on where they were > signal and not handled, we end up with around 1100 exceptions... only > 3 or 4 are handled directly

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 4016 in pharo: Monticello Announcements

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #1 on issue 4016 by ryd...(a)gmail.com: Monticello Announcements http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4016 Some context would be nice... And MC announcements should _definately_ not be done by the Core System Announcer :)

April 14, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Improving Pharo's Exception Hierarchy

by Hernan Wilkinson

the problem is not related to technical issues (like how much machine memory you save, etc). It is related to knowledge organization... If you have two classes that define exactly the same methods, inst var, etc, why do you have two instead of one? If you answer is "because of the name of the class", remember that names are contextualized to the place where they are used... I mean, this is easy, just take all the places where exceptions are handle in Smalltalk and look what the handlers do with the exceptions. You will see that in almost all cases the exceptions are not used at all, the information they carry with them is not use at all... so, from a theory point of view it looks nice to have a big exception hierarchy but from the practical point of view is not only useless but also more difficult to use. I build a system that had an exception class base on where they were signal and not handled, we end up with around 1100 exceptions... only 3 or 4 are handled directly On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Toon Verwaest <toon.verwaest(a)gmail.com>wrote: > I find the "managing the exception hierarchy" a bit strange... Do you > really have to manage anything more than just normal classes? Every > exception is related to a specific part of your code, just like other > classes. What's wrong with creating hundreds of small classes wherever it's > necessary? You might save a tiny bit of memory by using error codes or > symbols, but I don't really see much more of a gain there, while you do gain > from proper objects. > > Being clear and modeling properly generally pays off in the long run. And > the bit of runtime memory you save isn't really worth your while... > > Or am I missing something else? I didn't really follow the whole > conversation in-depth. > > cheers, > Toon > > > On 04/13/2011 09:54 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> Camillo, >> >> Hey, I _am_ old, but not _that_ old:) ... There are a couple of things >> that were invented in the Stone Age that have survived to today, so old >> ideas are not immediately bad, because they are old:) >> >> It feels like you are creating classes that are not much more than symbols >> ... >> >> I am not one to shy away from using classes when they are called for, but >> I am just making a practicality point ... we don't have a unique class for >> each character in the alphabet, but we could....we could have a unique class >> for every possible error condition or not ... >> >> I think it is simply a practical answer... >> >> I do maintain that you _should_ use some sort of test along the lines of: >> "Will anyone ever need to write a handler for the exception?" in your >> criteria for deciding when to create a class and when to use something like >> a "reason code" to disambiguate the signalling site... >> >> Dale >> >> On 04/13/2011 12:32 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: >> >>> Perfect, I ll be there to bang heads ;). >>> >>> So without "Exception" pre- or suffix seems to be nice. However I >>> don't see the need of using symbols over real classes. This feels >>> indeed like going to stone age of error handling, thats what you have >>> polymorphism and ExceptionSets for. >>> >>> Anyway, the main idea is to make single exceptions recognizable and >>> not just use one single, basically meaningless, exception type. >>> >>> best regards, Camillo Bruni >>> >>> >>> On 2011-04-13, at 21:22, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> >>> Thanks a lot everybody for the reactions, this could become a nice >>>> discussion next Friday. All points raised are valid, I would like >>>> simple names and a compact multipurpose hierarchy too. >>>> >>>> On 13 Apr 2011, at 19:39, Dale Henrichs wrote: >>>> >>>> Some thoughts from an old man (started programming before >>>>> exceptions of any kind were available:) ... >>>>> >>>>> In the old days, error numbers had a place in the universe ... >>>>> error numbers of a certain range indicated specific errors and >>>>> the "error handlers" could check for a range or a specific error >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Today I think there is still a place for the notion of "error >>>>> numbers". >>>>> >>>>> In Smalltalk I would use Symbols instead of numbers, but the idea >>>>> would be to use a concrete exception class to identify broad >>>>> categories of error conditions (i.e., FileStreamError) and a >>>>> symbolic "reason code" to indicate the specific error (i.e., >>>>> #fileDoesNotExist, #fileExists, #cannotDelete, etc.), that way an >>>>> error handler can be written for FileStreamError and then >>>>> specific action take with respect to which "reason code" is >>>>> involved, if such action is needed. >>>>> >>>>> The main advantage of using reasonCodes over using a "class per >>>>> error condition" is that you can reduce the size of the Exception >>>>> hierarchy to a manageable size (GemStone has hundreds of error >>>>> conditions, so we've resorted to using "reason codes" to manage >>>>> the size of the hierarchy). >>>>> >>>>> As Hernan hints, more often than not it is important to be very >>>>> specific about the error condition when signalling an error (a >>>>> unique error message per "per reason code" would be desirable), >>>>> but the there are very few places where the handler is going to >>>>> be that specific ... >>>>> >>>>> In other words, if it is likely that programmers in the course of >>>>> using an application will be writing specific error handlers to >>>>> distinguish between the KeyNotFound and ValueNotFound condition, >>>>> then classes should be created, otherwise, the NotFoundException >>>>> could be implemented with three reason codes: #keyNotFound, >>>>> #valueNotFound, and #elementNotFound and you'd get the best of >>>>> both worlds, explicit information at the signalling site and a >>>>> much smaller and more manageable Exception class hierarchy. >>>>> >>>>> Dale >>>>> >>>>> On 04/13/2011 10:15 AM, Hernan Wilkinson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think it is not a good idea to use the prefix Exception. We >>>>>> do not use the word "exception" in real life, so we should not >>>>>> do it on our systems. About the proposed hierarchy, the problem >>>>>> with having specific exceptions is that they are important for >>>>>> those who catch them, not for those who signal them. For >>>>>> example, besides the name, what is the difference between >>>>>> KeyNotFound or ValueNotFound? none. So, I think that the >>>>>> exception hierarchy should be grown from it uses, not created >>>>>> based on how or where they are signaled. >>>>>> >>>>>> my 2 cents :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Miguel >>>>>> CobÃ¡<miguel.coba(a)gmail.com <mailto:miguel.coba@gmail.com>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> El miÃ©, 13-04-2011 a las 14:52 +0200, Camillo Bruni escribiÃ³: >>>>>> >>>>>> And as Mariano pointed out, there should be a convention on >>>>>>> the naming: I am still not sure about suffixing the exception >>>>>>> classes >>>>>>> >>>>>> with >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Exception", but I guess this is a good thing to do. Though >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> >>>>>> must say >>>>>> >>>>>>> that I omitted it so far ;) and just put the verb there, but >>>>>>> that can be easily changed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would say no to suffixes. Analogous to announcements, they >>>>>> shouldn't have the suffix. The name should be descriptive >>>>>> enough and intention revealing that the suffix isn't needed in >>>>>> most cases. For example, I think that >>>>>> >>>>>> DividedByZero >>>>>> >>>>>> is better than >>>>>> >>>>>> DividedByZeroException >>>>>> >>>>>> and no information is lost with the sorter name. Instead, >>>>>> DivideByZero isn't clear enough to indicate that is a event >>>>>> that happened. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz >>>>>> http://miguel.leugim.com.mx >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- *HernÃ¡n Wilkinson Agile Software Development, Teaching& >>>>>> Coaching Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207 email: >>>>>> hernan.wilkinson(a)10Pines.com site: >>>>>> http://www.10Pines.com<http://www.10pines.com/>* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- *HernÃ¡n Wilkinson Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207 email: hernan.wilkinson(a)10Pines.com site: http://www.10Pines.com <http://www.10pines.com/>*

April 14, 2011

[Pharo-project] Issue 4016 in pharo: Monticello Announcements

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Status: FixProposed Owner: Benjamin...(a)gmail.com Labels: Nautilus New issue 4016 by Benjamin...(a)gmail.com: Monticello Announcements http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4016 Add some monticello announcement basically when a package turn dirty and when a package turn clean Attachments: MonticelloAnnouncements.1.cs 3.2 KB

April 14, 2011