July 2016 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo-users Digest, Vol 39, Issue 126

by Alejandro Adgi Romano

Good morning! Okey, so, i must create an object from Ghost? I am sendig all of you the data from cvs file. What I need is generate a code in Pharo for Read this information, (because i need work with the pays, or the credits notes), so I need, in a variable for example, put the value of the cell X, which contains the $Total. The information from csv file is like the next. I tried to use NeoCsv but i donÂ´t understood. Is good NeoCsv or is better the way using Ghost how you say? DÃa Evento Registrado NÃºmero Originante Moneda (*) Monto (*) Fecha de EjecuciÃ³n (pago, cobro o congelamiento) Frecuencia de Pago Comprobante Asociado (**) 1 Factura F1 Propia Pesos 1000 DÃa 10 - - 1 Factura F2 Propia Pesos 500 DÃa 11 - - 2 Factura F3 Terceros Pesos 250 DÃa 11 - - 3 Factura F4 Propia DÃ³lares 5000 DÃa 10 - - 4 Factura F5 Propia DÃ³lares 5000 DÃa 22 - - 5 Factura F6 Terceros DÃ³lares 5000 DÃa 23 - - 6 Factura F7 Propia DÃ³lares 5000 DÃa 35 - - 7 Factura Recurrente FR8 Propia Pesos 100 DÃa 11 3 veces, cada 10 dÃas. - 8 Factura Recurrente FR9 Propia Pesos 150 DÃa 15 3 veces, cada 5 dÃas. - 10 Congelamiento FR FR9 - - - DÃa 22 - - 10 Factura (Real) F81 Propia Pesos 100 DÃa 11 - FR8 14 Factura (Real) F91 Propia Pesos 150 DÃa 15 - FR9 19 Factura (Real) F92 Propia Pesos 150 DÃa 20 - FR9 20 Factura (Real) F82 Propia Pesos 100 DÃa 21 - FR8 30 Factura (Real) F83 Propia Pesos 100 DÃa 31 - FR8 2016-07-28 9:06 GMT-03:00 <pharo-users-request(a)lists.pharo.org>: > Send Pharo-users mailing list submissions to > pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > pharo-users-request(a)lists.pharo.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > pharo-users-owner(a)lists.pharo.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Pharo-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Update CI books written in Pillar (Yann Dubois) > 2. Re: "self problem" with Ghost (virus) (Steven Costiou) > 3. Re: "self problem" with Ghost (virus) (Denis Kudriashov) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:43:52 +0200 > From: Yann Dubois <yann59.dubois(a)gmail.com> > To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> > Subject: [Pharo-users] Update CI books written in Pillar > Message-ID: > < > CALbP1jtHe9GefP7s9KwAnD6QaB_qzyBuUqzE1sZH0oNuSWESAA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi ! > > In the last version of Pillar (4.0.x), Pillar don't manage the compilation > cycle. So the ./compile.sh does not work anymore. > > To update our CI, we use a Makefile (I advise you to use this too). You > have an example on : > > https://github.com/pillar-markup/Pillar-Archetype/blob/master/welcome/Makef… > . > > In this Makefile, we create symbolic links pointing on the output > directory. It causes "out of memory" on Jenkins. To solve this problem, you > need to remove the symbolic links after the compilation. Personnaly, I had > > *find book-result -type l -exec unlink {} \;* > > > at the end of the EnterprisePharo's Jenkins script. > > Cheers, Yann >

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by Guille Polito

Denis, I recommend that you read carefully the paper that Steven sent (the one about message passing, that Stef wrote many years ago :)). If you read carefully, you'll see that what you call object virus is already there, and falls into the category "anonymous classes". Maybe you can get some ideas for names in there. Some ideas that come to my mind: - Your virus *intercepts* messages, it does . - Your virus actually allows you to change the *meta-object* of an object (and thus how it receives messages). - Moreover you can handle several meta-levels, so it's not a single meta-object. -------- Original Message -------- > > 2016-07-28 12:56 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com > <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: > > I do not like either the âvirusâ name. > not just because is negative in a subjective wayâ¦ also it hides > what it does inside a fantasy name, and that IMO is negative to > self discovery of the system. > > I meanâ¦ a framework can have a fantasy nameâ¦ but a class? A method > name? (#infect:â¦ come on!) > > I know is âcool", but if I read the code below, I have NO CLUE of > what is going to happen, and thatâs not good. > > > virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > virus infect: victim. > > > As any framework you need to know something about it. And description > here is quite simple: virus is a guy who changes behaviour of infected > objects. > What you think about renaming virus to mutation? > > mutation := GHObjectMutation behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > mutation infect: victim. > > > Is it makes any sense for you? > > You should understand that ObjectVirus is specific kind of ghost for > real object interception. It is not general proxy because it make > concrete decisions about class side behaviour of infected instances > and about their meta level. Also there are other "real object ghosts" > (I remember Guille is implementing Membrane). > > I try to say that it is quite difficult to call different kind of > ghosts without distinguishing them by some kind of metaphor. It is > easy to be lost inside many "general" proxy names. >

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-07-28 12:56 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > I do not like either the âvirusâ name. > not just because is negative in a subjective wayâ¦ also it hides what it > does inside a fantasy name, and that IMO is negative to self discovery of > the system. > > I meanâ¦ a framework can have a fantasy nameâ¦ but a class? A method name? > (#infect:â¦ come on!) > > I know is âcool", but if I read the code below, I have NO CLUE of what is > going to happen, and thatâs not good. > virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > virus infect: victim. As any framework you need to know something about it. And description here is quite simple: virus is a guy who changes behaviour of infected objects. What you think about renaming virus to mutation? mutation := GHObjectMutation behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. mutation infect: victim. Is it makes any sense for you? You should understand that ObjectVirus is specific kind of ghost for real object interception. It is not general proxy because it make concrete decisions about class side behaviour of infected instances and about their meta level. Also there are other "real object ghosts" (I remember Guille is implementing Membrane). I try to say that it is quite difficult to call different kind of ghosts without distinguishing them by some kind of metaphor. It is easy to be lost inside many "general" proxy names.

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by stepharo

Le 28/7/16 Ã 12:11, Guille Polito a Ã©crit : > This is the difference between Forwarding and Delegation [1]. > > Accessorily to this discussion, the name "Virus" does not yet convince me: > - first, it has a negative connotation in informatics. People do not > want to have virus installed. They do not want virus infecting their > machines. People using Pharo for business will not install Viruses nor > write ones :) + 1000000 > - regarding the metaphorical aspect, a virus contaminates an > organism, and moreover, we want to eliminate it not keep it... > - besides, Virus might be a fancy name, but you already have a > fancy/fantasy name in the project: Ghost. Thus, I would not call the > class implementing such behavior a virus. The "meta" vocabulary is > already complex, and specially the one around proxies. I think that > adding virus to it only complexifies even more the context... I would > stick with the behavior used by the rest of the world in this case. > > Guille > > > > [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forwarding_(object-oriented_programming)#Ex… > > -------- Original Message -------- >> I think I not understood second part of "self problem" in this paper. >> But self sends are covered by virus as I described. >> >> 2016-07-28 11:30 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:dionisiydk@gmail.com>>: >> >> Hi >> >> 2016-07-27 22:19 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: >> >> Hi, >> >> I use virus from Ghost to intercept messages sent to a given >> object and adapt methods behaviors for this particular object >> only. However it would seems that doing interception this way >> is subject to the "self problem" described in this paper from >> StÃ©phane (DUCASSE, StÃ©phane. Evaluating message passing >> control techniques in Smalltalk. /JOURNAL OF OBJECT ORIENTED >> PROGRAMMING/, 1999, vol. 12, p. 39-50). >> >> I understand i could do instance based adaptation using an >> other technique, but i wonder if there is any way with Ghost >> to deal with this "self problem" problem ? >> >> I think "self problem" is only related to classic proxies when >> objects stay behind them. But ObjectVirus is not proxy in this >> meaning. When you infect your object by virus it is not replaced >> by somebody else. It is same original instance but with >> overridden behaviour. That's why I call it virus without any >> relation to proxies. >> Any message to infected object is processed by your behaviour. >> All self sends are intercepted. But there are few exceptions: >> - special messages like ==,ifTrue/ifNil are not intercepted >> - meta messages are not intercepted. They processed by Ghost >> mechanics but they not passed to your behaviour. Meta messages >> defined by #currentMetaLevel of your behaviour. You could >> implement it like: >> >> YourGhostBehaviour>>currentMetaLevel >> >> ^GHMetaLevel empty >> >> >> Empty meta level means that all messages will be passed to your >> behaviour. There is also "GHMetaLevel standard" which is default >> one. It makes most of "tool messages" not interceptable. For >> example #printString, #class, #instVarAt: will be not >> intercepted. It's messages which are usually used by tools like >> inspector and debugger. >> Standard meta level simplifies debugging of new behaviours. If >> you make mistake somewhere standard messages will be not broken >> and you could debug error by tools. >> >> >

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by Steven Costiou

Thank you very much =) It works perfectly ! Steven. Le 2016-07-28 14:05, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : > Steven, I fixed it. > Load development version (or just this: Ghost-ObjectVirus-DenisKudryashov.12). > > I will update stable soon > > 2016-07-28 13:46 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: > > Ok by digging a bit, i found that it was a problem in my behavior though i don't understand it. > > When sending message to self, the #isMetaMessage: returns always true when evaluating the first test condition GHCurrentMetaLevelDepth value > 0 ifTrue: [ ^true ]. The value returns something higher than 0 and my "self messages" are considered to be meta-messages. It is very sensible to modifications, as just removing this test or try to bend it can freezes the image (just tried to see what would happen). > > I'm a bit lost, what should i do to consider "self messages" not "meta" in the behavior ? > > Le 2016-07-28 12:33, Steven Costiou a Ã©crit : > > Hi, > > I think i am missing something. > > For example in the following code (took from the tests): > > | victim virus actual | > virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > virus infect: victim. > victim corner > > The evaluation is trapped by the send:to: method in the behavior (i've put a halt there). However if i replace the "corner" message by an inspect of the victim, and if i evaluate "self corner", then the message is processed without going through the send:to: method of the behavior. It is not halted and the victim responds immediately to the message. I have also tried to add a new method in the Rectangle class that calls "self corner". When called in the playground, my new message is trapped but not the "corner" sent to self. > > From what i understand it could be related to the behavior i use, but i don't see what's missing. > > Le 2016-07-28 11:35, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : > I think I not understood second part of "self problem" in this paper. But self sends are covered by virus as I described. > > 2016-07-28 11:30 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > > Hi > > 2016-07-27 22:19 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: > > Hi, > > I use virus from Ghost to intercept messages sent to a given object and adapt methods behaviors for this particular object only. However it would seems that doing interception this way is subject to the "self problem" described in this paper from StÃ©phane (DUCASSE, StÃ©phane. Evaluating message passing control techniques in Smalltalk. _JOURNAL OF OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING_, 1999, vol. 12, p. 39-50). > > I understand i could do instance based adaptation using an other technique, but i wonder if there is any way with Ghost to deal with this "self problem" problem ? I think "self problem" is only related to classic proxies when objects stay behind them. But ObjectVirus is not proxy in this meaning. When you infect your object by virus it is not replaced by somebody else. It is same original instance but with overridden behaviour. That's why I call it virus without any relation to proxies. > Any message to infected object is processed by your behaviour. All self sends are intercepted. But there are few exceptions: > - special messages like ==,ifTrue/ifNil are not intercepted > - meta messages are not intercepted. They processed by Ghost mechanics but they not passed to your behaviour. Meta messages defined by #currentMetaLevel of your behaviour. You could implement it like: > > YourGhostBehaviour>>currentMetaLevel > ^GHMetaLevel empty > > Empty meta level means that all messages will be passed to your behaviour. There is also "GHMetaLevel standard" which is default one. It makes most of "tool messages" not interceptable. For example #printString, #class, #instVarAt: will be not intercepted. It's messages which are usually used by tools like inspector and debugger. > Standard meta level simplifies debugging of new behaviours. If you make mistake somewhere standard messages will be not broken and you could debug error by tools.

July 28, 2016

Emojis in Pharo

by Sean P. DeNigris

Are there any available fonts which correctly display emojis? I'm playing with sms data... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Emojis-in-Pharo-tp4908461.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by Denis Kudriashov

And stable version 2.2.2 is done 2016-07-28 14:05 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > Steven, I fixed it. > Load development version (or just this: > Ghost-ObjectVirus-DenisKudryashov.12). > > I will update stable soon > > 2016-07-28 13:46 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: > >> Ok by digging a bit, i found that it was a problem in my behavior though >> i don't understand it. >> >> When sending message to self, the #isMetaMessage: returns always true >> when evaluating the first test condition GHCurrentMetaLevelDepth value > 0 >> ifTrue: [ ^true ]. The value returns something higher than 0 and my "self >> messages" are considered to be meta-messages. It is very sensible to >> modifications, as just removing this test or try to bend it can freezes the >> image (just tried to see what would happen). >> >> I'm a bit lost, what should i do to consider "self messages" not "meta" >> in the behavior ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 2016-07-28 12:33, Steven Costiou a Ã©crit : >> >> Hi, >> >> I think i am missing something. >> >> For example in the following code (took from the tests): >> >> | victim virus actual | >> virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. >> >> victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. >> virus infect: victim. >> victim corner >> >> The evaluation is trapped by the send:to: method in the behavior (i've >> put a halt there). However if i replace the "corner" message by an inspect >> of the victim, and if i evaluate "self corner", then the message is >> processed without going through the send:to: method of the behavior. It is >> not halted and the victim responds immediately to the message. I have also >> tried to add a new method in the Rectangle class that calls "self corner". >> When called in the playground, my new message is trapped but not the >> "corner" sent to self. >> >> From what i understand it could be related to the behavior i use, but i >> don't see what's missing. >> >> >> >> Le 2016-07-28 11:35, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : >> >> I think I not understood second part of "self problem" in this paper. But >> self sends are covered by virus as I described. >> >> 2016-07-28 11:30 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> 2016-07-27 22:19 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I use virus from Ghost to intercept messages sent to a given object and >>>> adapt methods behaviors for this particular object only. However it would >>>> seems that doing interception this way is subject to the "self problem" >>>> described in this paper from StÃ©phane (DUCASSE, StÃ©phane. Evaluating >>>> message passing control techniques in Smalltalk. *JOURNAL OF OBJECT >>>> ORIENTED PROGRAMMING*, 1999, vol. 12, p. 39-50). >>>> >>>> I understand i could do instance based adaptation using an other >>>> technique, but i wonder if there is any way with Ghost to deal with this >>>> "self problem" problem ? >>>> >>> I think "self problem" is only related to classic proxies when objects >>> stay behind them. But ObjectVirus is not proxy in this meaning. When you >>> infect your object by virus it is not replaced by somebody else. It is same >>> original instance but with overridden behaviour. That's why I call it virus >>> without any relation to proxies. >>> Any message to infected object is processed by your behaviour. All self >>> sends are intercepted. But there are few exceptions: >>> - special messages like ==,ifTrue/ifNil are not intercepted >>> - meta messages are not intercepted. They processed by Ghost mechanics >>> but they not passed to your behaviour. Meta messages defined by >>> #currentMetaLevel of your behaviour. You could implement it like: >>> >>> >>> YourGhostBehaviour>>currentMetaLevel >>> >>> ^GHMetaLevel empty >>> >>> >>> Empty meta level means that all messages will be passed to your >>> behaviour. There is also "GHMetaLevel standard" which is default one. It >>> makes most of "tool messages" not interceptable. For example #printString, >>> #class, #instVarAt: will be not intercepted. It's messages which are >>> usually used by tools like inspector and debugger. >>> Standard meta level simplifies debugging of new behaviours. If you make >>> mistake somewhere standard messages will be not broken and you could debug >>> error by tools. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> kloum.io >> > >

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by Denis Kudriashov

Steven, I fixed it. Load development version (or just this: Ghost-ObjectVirus-DenisKudryashov.12). I will update stable soon 2016-07-28 13:46 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: > Ok by digging a bit, i found that it was a problem in my behavior though i > don't understand it. > > When sending message to self, the #isMetaMessage: returns always true when > evaluating the first test condition GHCurrentMetaLevelDepth value > 0 > ifTrue: [ ^true ]. The value returns something higher than 0 and my "self > messages" are considered to be meta-messages. It is very sensible to > modifications, as just removing this test or try to bend it can freezes the > image (just tried to see what would happen). > > I'm a bit lost, what should i do to consider "self messages" not "meta" in > the behavior ? > > > > > > Le 2016-07-28 12:33, Steven Costiou a Ã©crit : > > Hi, > > I think i am missing something. > > For example in the following code (took from the tests): > > | victim virus actual | > virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > virus infect: victim. > victim corner > > The evaluation is trapped by the send:to: method in the behavior (i've put > a halt there). However if i replace the "corner" message by an inspect of > the victim, and if i evaluate "self corner", then the message is processed > without going through the send:to: method of the behavior. It is not halted > and the victim responds immediately to the message. I have also tried to > add a new method in the Rectangle class that calls "self corner". When > called in the playground, my new message is trapped but not the "corner" > sent to self. > > From what i understand it could be related to the behavior i use, but i > don't see what's missing. > > > > Le 2016-07-28 11:35, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : > > I think I not understood second part of "self problem" in this paper. But > self sends are covered by virus as I described. > > 2016-07-28 11:30 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > >> Hi >> >> 2016-07-27 22:19 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I use virus from Ghost to intercept messages sent to a given object and >>> adapt methods behaviors for this particular object only. However it would >>> seems that doing interception this way is subject to the "self problem" >>> described in this paper from StÃ©phane (DUCASSE, StÃ©phane. Evaluating >>> message passing control techniques in Smalltalk. *JOURNAL OF OBJECT >>> ORIENTED PROGRAMMING*, 1999, vol. 12, p. 39-50). >>> >>> I understand i could do instance based adaptation using an other >>> technique, but i wonder if there is any way with Ghost to deal with this >>> "self problem" problem ? >>> >> I think "self problem" is only related to classic proxies when objects >> stay behind them. But ObjectVirus is not proxy in this meaning. When you >> infect your object by virus it is not replaced by somebody else. It is same >> original instance but with overridden behaviour. That's why I call it virus >> without any relation to proxies. >> Any message to infected object is processed by your behaviour. All self >> sends are intercepted. But there are few exceptions: >> - special messages like ==,ifTrue/ifNil are not intercepted >> - meta messages are not intercepted. They processed by Ghost mechanics >> but they not passed to your behaviour. Meta messages defined by >> #currentMetaLevel of your behaviour. You could implement it like: >> >> >> YourGhostBehaviour>>currentMetaLevel >> >> ^GHMetaLevel empty >> >> >> Empty meta level means that all messages will be passed to your >> behaviour. There is also "GHMetaLevel standard" which is default one. It >> makes most of "tool messages" not interceptable. For example #printString, >> #class, #instVarAt: will be not intercepted. It's messages which are >> usually used by tools like inspector and debugger. >> Standard meta level simplifies debugging of new behaviours. If you make >> mistake somewhere standard messages will be not broken and you could debug >> error by tools. >> >> > > -- > kloum.io >

July 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] "self problem" with Ghost (virus)

by Steven Costiou

Ok by digging a bit, i found that it was a problem in my behavior though i don't understand it. When sending message to self, the #isMetaMessage: returns always true when evaluating the first test condition GHCurrentMetaLevelDepth value > 0 ifTrue: [ ^true ]. The value returns something higher than 0 and my "self messages" are considered to be meta-messages. It is very sensible to modifications, as just removing this test or try to bend it can freezes the image (just tried to see what would happen). I'm a bit lost, what should i do to consider "self messages" not "meta" in the behavior ? Le 2016-07-28 12:33, Steven Costiou a Ã©crit : > Hi, > > I think i am missing something. > > For example in the following code (took from the tests): > > | victim virus actual | > virus := GHObjectVirus behaviour: GHGhostBehaviourStub new. > > victim := 0@0 corner: 3@4. > virus infect: victim. > victim corner > > The evaluation is trapped by the send:to: method in the behavior (i've put a halt there). However if i replace the "corner" message by an inspect of the victim, and if i evaluate "self corner", then the message is processed without going through the send:to: method of the behavior. It is not halted and the victim responds immediately to the message. I have also tried to add a new method in the Rectangle class that calls "self corner". When called in the playground, my new message is trapped but not the "corner" sent to self. > > From what i understand it could be related to the behavior i use, but i don't see what's missing. > > Le 2016-07-28 11:35, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : > I think I not understood second part of "self problem" in this paper. But self sends are covered by virus as I described. > > 2016-07-28 11:30 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > > Hi > > 2016-07-27 22:19 GMT+02:00 Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io>: > > Hi, > > I use virus from Ghost to intercept messages sent to a given object and adapt methods behaviors for this particular object only. However it would seems that doing interception this way is subject to the "self problem" described in this paper from StÃ©phane (DUCASSE, StÃ©phane. Evaluating message passing control techniques in Smalltalk. _JOURNAL OF OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING_, 1999, vol. 12, p. 39-50). > > I understand i could do instance based adaptation using an other technique, but i wonder if there is any way with Ghost to deal with this "self problem" problem ? I think "self problem" is only related to classic proxies when objects stay behind them. But ObjectVirus is not proxy in this meaning. When you infect your object by virus it is not replaced by somebody else. It is same original instance but with overridden behaviour. That's why I call it virus without any relation to proxies. > Any message to infected object is processed by your behaviour. All self sends are intercepted. But there are few exceptions: > - special messages like ==,ifTrue/ifNil are not intercepted > - meta messages are not intercepted. They processed by Ghost mechanics but they not passed to your behaviour. Meta messages defined by #currentMetaLevel of your behaviour. You could implement it like: > > YourGhostBehaviour>>currentMetaLevel > ^GHMetaLevel empty > > Empty meta level means that all messages will be passed to your behaviour. There is also "GHMetaLevel standard" which is default one. It makes most of "tool messages" not interceptable. For example #printString, #class, #instVarAt: will be not intercepted. It's messages which are usually used by tools like inspector and debugger. > Standard meta level simplifies debugging of new behaviours. If you make mistake somewhere standard messages will be not broken and you could debug error by tools. -- kloum.io

July 28, 2016

Update CI books written in Pillar

by Yann Dubois

Hi ! In the last version of Pillar (4.0.x), Pillar don't manage the compilation cycle. So the ./compile.sh does not work anymore. To update our CI, we use a Makefile (I advise you to use this too). You have an example on : https://github.com/pillar-markup/Pillar-Archetype/blob/master/welcome/Makef… . In this Makefile, we create symbolic links pointing on the output directory. It causes "out of memory" on Jenkins. To solve this problem, you need to remove the symbolic links after the compilation. Personnaly, I had *find book-result -type l -exec unlink {} \;* at the end of the EnterprisePharo's Jenkins script. Cheers, Yann

July 28, 2016