On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:

Beware, most client code should only refer to the visible façade Float and its API. BoxedFloat64 is an implementation detail and is VM dependent. We don't want client code to be VM dependent, do we? I hope those references to BoxedFloat64 are rare.

Should there be a Quality Assistant rule for this? cheers -ben

2016-02-18 11:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>:

...

Because we have compiled methods with BoxedFloat64 associations in the methods literals, but the source code still shows only "Float".

17638 Browsing calls on BoxedFloat64 shows methods with reference to BoxedFloat64 in the code

Beware, most client code should only refer to the visible façade Float and its API. BoxedFloat64 is an implementation detail and is VM dependent. We don't want client code to be VM dependent, do we? I hope those references to BoxedFloat64 are rare. Hi Nicolas, Of course i agree that making client code dependent on the vm is a bad idea and generally i agree with everything you said. but i do have some experience with using BoxedFloat64 and this experience showed me that relying simply on Float occasionaly just is not posssible (that 'implementation detail' does have an effect on one of my programs). i for one would appreciate it, if BoxedFloat64 would _not_ be hidden behind Float in the source code. werner -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-was-BoxedFloat64-integrated-into-the-image-tp48784... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2016-02-23 3:55 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:

Hi Nicolai,

there is a hairy script that moves methods around the hierarchy. IIRC Float is renamed to BoxedFloat64, then a new Float is introduced, then BoxedFloat64 made to inherit from it. It's likely that the last step of this script, which replaces the methodClassAssociations in the moved methods (makes those BoxedFloat64 methods that used to be Float or maybe vice verse) with the right association, didn't work.

I don't know how the Pharo 5 image is built. If it is incremental then just write a script to fix the associations. But if the image is produced by a bootstrap you'll need to track down the script that creates the revised Float hierarchy and fix it to work properly in Pharo.

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)

Thanks Eliot, The methods for c lass Float and BoxedFloat are looking fine. Whats wrong is, that some other methods referring to class Float in there source, now having BoxedFloat in its compiled method literal array, #BoxedFloat64->BoxedFloat64 instead of #Float->Float. But it looks like recompiling the whole image fixes this. nicolai

On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:47 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:

Because we have compiled methods with BoxedFloat64 associations in the methods literals, but the source code still shows only "Float".

17638 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17638/Browsing-calls-on-BoxedFloat64-shows...> Browsing calls on BoxedFloat64 shows methods with reference to BoxedFloat64 in the code

2016-02-24 9:31 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>:

2016-02-23 8:48 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>:

...

2016-02-23 3:55 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:

...

Hi Nicolai,

there is a hairy script that moves methods around the hierarchy. IIRC Float is renamed to BoxedFloat64, then a new Float is introduced, then BoxedFloat64 made to inherit from it. It's likely that the last step of this script, which replaces the methodClassAssociations in the moved methods (makes those BoxedFloat64 methods that used to be Float or maybe vice verse) with the right association, didn't work.

I don't know how the Pharo 5 image is built. If it is incremental then just write a script to fix the associations. But if the image is produced by a bootstrap you'll need to track down the script that creates the revised Float hierarchy and fix it to work properly in Pharo.

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)

Thanks Eliot,

The methods for c lass Float and BoxedFloat are looking fine. Whats wrong is, that some other methods referring to class Float in there source, now having BoxedFloat in its compiled method literal array, #BoxedFloat64->BoxedFloat64 instead of #Float->Float.

But it looks like recompiling the whole image fixes this.

nicolai

Would it makes sense if BoxedFloat64 species returns Float ?

This is because I am about to fix some failing tests in pharo. Tests like self assert: result class = Float can be replaced by self assert: result isFloat But for tests like self assert: resultClass = Float I don't want to write self assert: resultClass = BoxedFloat64 and looking for an easy way to check if the result class is "like" Float self assert: resultClass species = Float species ? self assert: resultClass isFloatClass ? self assert: resultClass new isFloat ? any ideas

...

...

On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:47 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:

Because we have compiled methods with BoxedFloat64 associations in the methods literals, but the source code still shows only "Float".

17638 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17638/Browsing-calls-on-BoxedFloat64-shows...> Browsing calls on BoxedFloat64 shows methods with reference to BoxedFloat64 in the code