What is the point of this folder? Do you expect us to write documentation there? Why do you systematically are again pier? especially when I wrote successfully the seaside book with it and so far the only book I saw using markdown are not book? May be I should go back to write in plain latex and like that everybody will be happy. Or I should even do not write any book. Because when I see the amount of energy it takes and after people kill my fun with fucking syntactic issue because I do not use markdown. Stef
I added https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-documentation
On 2013-11-13, at 02:47, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Ben it would be good to do it pier format so that we get html and pdf and also to avoid to have documentation spread all over.
Stef
On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:42 PM, Benjamin <Benjamin.VanRyseghem.Pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes it is planned :)
The idea is to have it ready for the release of Pharo 3.0 (at last). There is a git repo I just opened[1] where the doc will be :)
Every body is free to fork it and to pull-request me :)
Ben [1]https://github.com/BenjaminVanRyseghem/Spec_Documentation
On 12 Nov 2013, at 23:09, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any new documentation planned ?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Benjamin <Benjamin.VanRyseghem.Pharo@gmail.com> wrote: Confirmed and fixed :P https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12153
Ben
On 12 Nov 2013, at 17:08, Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com> wrote:
(Checked in Pharo 30567)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Ben. It's neat to have Spec models for tree columns. It was strange to instantiate MorphTreeColumnMorph directly from my Spec model.
I found an issue in TreeModel: Only one level of children is shown. Reproduce with:
TreeModel new roots: (1 to: 5); childrenBlock: [ :item | 1+item to: 5+item ]; openWithSpec
Should I report?
MartÃn
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin <Benjamin.VanRyseghem.Pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
Itâs this one: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12135
Ben
On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:49, Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com> wrote:
I forgot to specify: in latest Pharo (30565)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there is some issue with TreeColumnModel. For example:
TreeModel exampleWithCustomColumnsAndNodes
Raises "ByteSymbol(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #adapt:"
Should I report in fogbugz?
thanks, MartÃn
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes this is what I did for the change sorter. I do not like this DSL like way of passing block over block over block over blocks.
I love blocks but methods are named blocks and I prefer them.
Stef
biut that method can be written:
aMenu addGroup: (MenuGroupModel new addItem: (MenuItemModel new name: 'Browse Full'; action: [ self browseSelectedObject ]; shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix); addItem: (MenuItem new name: 'Browse Class'; action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ])).
and you do not have to declare variables for that (and is a lot better than using a block, IMO).
On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Benjamin <Benjamin.VanRyseghem.Pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
One can just use an object too.
Itâs just that otherwise, it pollutes a bit the method with tons of inst vars (and then you forget to use them :P)
Ben
On 12 Nov 2013, at 13:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not necessary better, but it saves you from having hundreds of temp vars :)
Ben
On 12 Nov 2013, at 01:49, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Example: aMenu addGroup: [ :aGroup | aGroup addItem: [ :anItem | anItem name: 'Browse Full'; action: [ self browseSelectedObject ]; shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix ]. aGroup addItem: [ :anItem | anItem name: 'Browse Class'; action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ] ] ].
I do not see the value of passing block to add element to groups why not the normal way i.e. passing an object. I do not get why executing a block with an object is better?
he, I thought the same :)
Stef