Hi, Is it planned to add the possibility to edit instances variables of an object directly from the inspector. I mean without evaluating code, just by clicking on the value and update it? Regards, Christophe.
I already asked this too, so +1 - this is needed.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 16:29, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi,
Is it planned to add the possibility to edit instances variables of an object directly from the inspector. I mean without evaluating code, just by clicking on the value and update it?
Regards, Christophe.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 16:37, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
I already asked this too, so +1 - this is needed.
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 16:29, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi,
Is it planned to add the possibility to edit instances variables of an object directly from the inspector. I mean without evaluating code, just by clicking on the value and update it?
Regards, Christophe.
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
It simply has to be possible to edit values and to see live updates, there is no way around it - else the GT inspector looks at dead objects, bye bye live programming. I think it is not cool that this is being ignored.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
The feature for editing values in place is already implemented, just for some reasons related to changing the styling in a text editor it was slower than we wanted it to be so it wasn't enabled yet. We'll add it soon. I'm away from my computer this week :) Cheers, Andrei On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
It simply has to be possible to edit values and to see live updates, there is no way around it - else the GT inspector looks at dead objects, bye bye live programming.
I think it is not cool that this is being ignored.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
Hi all, We worked on it and came out with a prototype version. It will be possible to enter edition mode double clicking on the value. The problem we are facing is performance issues with Rubric when changing text mode from plain text to smalltalk code for syntax highlighting, to assign to the variable a value of the expression's result. Thank you for your feedback. Cheers, Alex On Nov 7, 2014 7:31 PM, "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
It simply has to be possible to edit values and to see live updates, there is no way around it - else the GT inspector looks at dead objects, bye bye live programming.
I think it is not cool that this is being ignored.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
Hi Sven, Neither of these requests are being ignored (see the other two replies), but good things take time. We would be happy to get more contributors :). Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
It simply has to be possible to edit values and to see live updates, there is no way around it - else the GT inspector looks at dead objects, bye bye live programming.
I think it is not cool that this is being ignored.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 21:02, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Sven,
Neither of these requests are being ignored (see the other two replies), but good things take time.
So the editing is coming, super.
We would be happy to get more contributors :).
So how are we going to make the inspectors really live ? The old inspectors had this busy loop (well part of the morph step protocol) for updating. I am sure I do not have to explain why we need this. Before, it was maybe not efficient (enough) and you said it would be too expensive for large computations. So what is the solution ? An opt-in or opt-out mechanism ? Per object, per presentation ?
Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
It simply has to be possible to edit values and to see live updates, there is no way around it - else the GT inspector looks at dead objects, bye bye live programming.
I think it is not cool that this is being ignored.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, editing state and inspectors need to be updated so you see live how value are changing even when they are changed from somewhere else.
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
But thatâs the point: if the value changes, the inspector shows the old one. So you can *not* trust it. (and all the cool demos do not work anymore: adding an ivar to a class and the inspector on the object shows it, inspecting the world and showing how the mouse course position changesâ¦) Marcus
What Alex was saying is that he only trusts an inspector that he just opened. This is clearly not ideal. Is there a way to get reliably notified when an object changes its state? Cheers, Doru On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
But thatâs the point: if the value changes, the inspector shows the old one. So you can *not* trust it. (and all the cool demos do not work anymore: adding an ivar to a class and the inspector on the object shows it, inspecting the world and showing how the mouse course position changesâ¦)
Marcus
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
What would be nice is to have the bifrost infrastructure and add a metaobject to an inspected object and removing when the inspector get closed. It would be quite nice and fully dynamic. On 8/11/14 08:28, Tudor Girba wrote:
What Alex was saying is that he only trusts an inspector that he just opened. This is clearly not ideal.
Is there a way to get reliably notified when an object changes its state?
Cheers, Doru
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote:
> On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com <mailto:alexandre.bergel@me.com>> wrote: > > This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one. >
But thatâs the point: if the value changes, the inspector shows the old one. So you can *not* trust it. (and all the cool demos do not work anymore: adding an ivar to a class and the inspector on the object shows it, inspecting the world and showing how the mouse course position changesâ¦)
Marcus
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
"Every thing has its own flow"
This would be indeed fantastic. Cheers, Doru On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 9:11 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
What would be nice is to have the bifrost infrastructure and add a metaobject to an inspected object and removing when the inspector get closed. It would be quite nice and fully dynamic.
On 8/11/14 08:28, Tudor Girba wrote:
What Alex was saying is that he only trusts an inspector that he just opened. This is clearly not ideal.
Is there a way to get reliably notified when an object changes its state?
Cheers, Doru
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 07 Nov 2014, at 19:24, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
This is strange, I do not remember to have use this when I was using the old inspector. I usually trust what the inspector tells me only having open one.
But thatâs the point: if the value changes, the inspector shows the old one. So you can *not* trust it. (and all the cool demos do not work anymore: adding an ivar to a class and the inspector on the object shows it, inspecting the world and showing how the mouse course position changesâ¦)
Marcus
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
On 08 Nov 2014, at 21:11, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
What would be nice is to have the bifrost infrastructure and add a metaobject to an inspected object and removing when the inspector get closed. It would be quite nice and fully dynamic.
Yes, in the longer term we should is like that⦠of course we need to be a bit careful as this would mean that we change (on some level) as soon as we inspect. But if we make the underlying framework really good (working with e.g. objects being passed to primitives), it would be great.
From the planning
-> Finish Reflecticity -> add proxies to the system -> combine the two -> then add a higher level layer (in the style of bifrost) So this will be fun⦠but will take a while. Marcus
On 09 Nov 2014, at 07:45, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 08 Nov 2014, at 21:11, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
What would be nice is to have the bifrost infrastructure and add a metaobject to an inspected object and removing when the inspector get closed. It would be quite nice and fully dynamic.
Yes, in the longer term we should is like that⦠of course we need to be a bit careful as this would mean that we change (on some level) as soon as we inspect. But if we make the underlying framework really good (working with e.g. objects being passed to primitives), it would be great.
Ah.. and we need not full object centric reflection for this: -> the inspector need to refresh if a variable changes -> this means we need to hook into all assignment to an ivar -> which is just a #before reflectivity link on a Slot, the same that breakpoints use. (reflective change needs more care (#instVarAt: and friends) So this should be working very very soon⦠Marcus
Ah.. and we need not full object centric reflection for this:
-> the inspector need to refresh if a variable changes -> this means we need to hook into all assignment to an ivar -> which is just a #before reflectivity link on a Slot, the same that breakpoints use. (reflective change needs more care (#instVarAt: and friends) -> scope to the object by testing for it (with a condition on the link). (would slow down all other users of the same class a little)
Marcus
participants (8)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Aliaksei Syrel -
Andrei Chis -
Christophe Demarey -
Marcus Denker -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Tudor Girba