(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?

Mart�n

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin
<Benjamin.VanRyseghem.Pharo@gmail.com> wrote:

It�s 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,
Mart�n

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM, St�phane 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.

It�s 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, St�phane 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