September 2012 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by sergio_101

> > This is a good guide: > > http://www.amazon.com/Smalltalk-Best-Practice-Patterns-Kent/dp/013476904X > i actually just bought that, and am making my way through it now.. thanks! -- ---- peace, sergio photographer, journalist, visionary http://www.ThoseOptimizeGuys.com http://www.CodingForHire.com http://www.coffee-black.com http://www.painlessfrugality.com http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101 http://www.facebook.com/sergio101

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by Paul DeBruicker

On 09/11/2012 12:28 PM, sergio_101 wrote: > i have been intentionally being vague about what i am doing, as i am > trying to understand the best smalltalk practice, without introducing > an approach from another language. This is a good guide: http://www.amazon.com/Smalltalk-Best-Practice-Patterns-Kent/dp/013476904X

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by sergio_101

> > But I don't really know what were you using that dictionary for and what was > the intention (#params: is not a very nice name). > i have been intentionally being vague about what i am doing, as i am trying to understand the best smalltalk practice, without introducing an approach from another language. the idea i am after is something like this in rails.. i can make a hash like: dog_params = {:sound => 'bark', :food => 'steak'} and create a dog like: Dog.create(dog_params) and have a dog that with those params.. i just want to make sure i am not inventing a problem to solve.. and that there isn't a more 'smalltalky' way to do it. thanks! -- ---- peace, sergio photographer, journalist, visionary http://www.ThoseOptimizeGuys.com http://www.CodingForHire.com http://www.coffee-black.com http://www.painlessfrugality.com http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101 http://www.facebook.com/sergio101

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] OSProcess-Tests, who solves these errors?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 September 2012 18:27, Peter K.H. Gragert <pkhgragert(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > Just read a foregoing mail and curious I installed > > as told: > > > > Gofer new > > squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository'; > > > > package: 'ConfigurationOfOSProcess'; > > load. > > > > (Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfOSProcess) project bleedingEdge load. > > > > To load CommandShell, you can start with: > > > > Gofer new > > squeaksource: 'CommandShell'; > > > > package: 'CommandShell-Piping'; > > load. > > > > Running the SUnittest on it: see picture included ..What to do (a newbie) > > PC: Vista, Pharo .14 ..Greets Peter > > Yeah, several features in windows are not supported (as opposed to > unix systems), > this is main reason why these tests fail. > > But if memory does not fails me, we have some outstanding issues with > osprocess , waiting to be fixed. > > And answering your question about who solves these errors: anyone who > want them fixed and having time to do that. > > At least we should write a proper #expectedFailures that returns the tests that should fail when running in Windows.... > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by Benjamin

On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:52 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: > On 2012-09-11, at 20:50, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> On 2012-09-11, at 20:36, sergio_101 <sergio.rrd(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> yes, i know this sounds simple.. but is it possible to instantiate an >>>> object with some parameters? >>>> >>>> say i have a dictionary: >>>> >>>> params := Dictionary new. >>>> params at: 'sound' put: 'bark' >>>> >>>> dog := Dog new. >>>> >>>> ^^ at this point, i would like to just create a dog and send it >>>> 'params' all at once.. >>>> >>>> can i do this? what would the syntax look like? >>> >>> sure :) in Smalltalk (almost) everything is a message-send :) >>> >>> So you can do the following: >>> >>> dog := Dog sound: 'wuff'. >>> >>> then a class side method: >>> >>> Dog class >> #sound: aString >>> ^ self basicNew >>> initializeWithSound: aString; >> yourself. >> >> Otherwise you may have some strange behavior if the #initializeWithSound: message doesn't return the receiver :) > well initialize.* usually returns self :) (it's like #initialize, where you never send #yourself) Play with Morphic and then you will take this habit too :) Ben

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by Esteban A. Maringolo

In Smalltalk you could do that, with any class side constructor or with a builder class. If you're looking for something more similar to how some JavaScript constructors work, where you can map property names of an anonymous object to properties of the new instance then there is no such feature, but I guess you could build it more or less easily passing a dictionary as argument. Ie. JavaScript: Object.create(Dog.prototype, { sound: 'bark', pitch: 1.1, filterFunction: function(s){...} }) And then have a Dog instance with sound, pitch and filterFunction copied from the second argument. Ie. Smalltalk Dog fromDictionary: (Dictionary new at: #sound put: 'bark'; at: #pitch put: 1.1; at: #filterFunction put: [:s | ]; yourself). And then map the keys in the dictionary to methods, properties or instance variables of your new Dog instance. Kind of hacky for Smalltalk, but useful in JS due to its prototypical essence. Not having a hash/dictionary literal syntax makes its use counter-intuitive and too verbose. I'd rather use my own constructor, maybe it will take a little longer but in the long term the explicit selector will make its semantics more clear. Regards, -- Esteban. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/smalltalk-instantiate-an-object-with-parameters-tp464… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by Carla F. Griggio

If you actually wanted to just set the sound of the dog, and you don't really need a Dictionary, you can do: myDog := Dog new sound: 'bark' Or if you wanted to use the dictionary, same thing: myDog := Dog new params: params. But I don't really know what were you using that dictionary for and what was the intention (#params: is not a very nice name). As Camillo said, (almost) everything is a message send, you just have to decide if you want a class message to create an 'initialized' dog all at once, or if using regular setters is enough. Cheers! Carla. On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM, sergio_101 <sergio.rrd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dog class>>newWithParams: aDictionary > > ^self new params: aDictionary > > > > Dog>>params: aDictionary > > params := aDictionary > > > > Is that something similar to what you were looking for? > > > > yes! this is very close to what i am looking to do.. this is kind of > where i figured it was going to go.. > > i was hoping it would be a one liner.. but i can live with this.. > > thanks! > > -- > ---- > peace, > sergio > photographer, journalist, visionary > > http://www.ThoseOptimizeGuys.com > http://www.CodingForHire.com > http://www.coffee-black.com > http://www.painlessfrugality.com > http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101 > http://www.facebook.com/sergio101 > >

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by sergio_101

> Dog class>>newWithParams: aDictionary > ^self new params: aDictionary > > Dog>>params: aDictionary > params := aDictionary > > Is that something similar to what you were looking for? > yes! this is very close to what i am looking to do.. this is kind of where i figured it was going to go.. i was hoping it would be a one liner.. but i can live with this.. thanks! -- ---- peace, sergio photographer, journalist, visionary http://www.ThoseOptimizeGuys.com http://www.CodingForHire.com http://www.coffee-black.com http://www.painlessfrugality.com http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101 http://www.facebook.com/sergio101

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-09-11, at 20:50, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: >> On 2012-09-11, at 20:36, sergio_101 <sergio.rrd(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> yes, i know this sounds simple.. but is it possible to instantiate an >>> object with some parameters? >>> >>> say i have a dictionary: >>> >>> params := Dictionary new. >>> params at: 'sound' put: 'bark' >>> >>> dog := Dog new. >>> >>> ^^ at this point, i would like to just create a dog and send it >>> 'params' all at once.. >>> >>> can i do this? what would the syntax look like? >> >> sure :) in Smalltalk (almost) everything is a message-send :) >> >> So you can do the following: >> >> dog := Dog sound: 'wuff'. >> >> then a class side method: >> >> Dog class >> #sound: aString >> ^ self basicNew >> initializeWithSound: aString; > yourself. > > Otherwise you may have some strange behavior if the #initializeWithSound: message doesn't return the receiver :) well initialize.* usually returns self :) (it's like #initialize, where you never send #yourself)

Sept. 11, 2012

Re: [Pharo-users] smalltalk - instantiate an object with parameters..

by Benjamin

On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: > > On 2012-09-11, at 20:36, sergio_101 <sergio.rrd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> yes, i know this sounds simple.. but is it possible to instantiate an >> object with some parameters? >> >> say i have a dictionary: >> >> params := Dictionary new. >> params at: 'sound' put: 'bark' >> >> dog := Dog new. >> >> ^^ at this point, i would like to just create a dog and send it >> 'params' all at once.. >> >> can i do this? what would the syntax look like? > > sure :) in Smalltalk (almost) everything is a message-send :) > > So you can do the following: > > dog := Dog sound: 'wuff'. > > then a class side method: > > Dog class >> #sound: aString > ^ self basicNew > initializeWithSound: aString; yourself. Otherwise you may have some strange behavior if the #initializeWithSound: message doesn't return the receiver :) Ben > > then the initializeWithSound: methods on instance side > > Dog >> #initializeWithSound: aString. > self initialize. > "now do the special initialization here..." > " for instance set the sound" > sound := aString. > > Dog >> initialize > "do the default initialization here" > "for instance set a default sound" > sound := 'bark'. > > > Hope that helps :) > >

Sept. 11, 2012