December 2017 - Pharo-users

Building a Baseline

by Prof. Andrew P. Black

In the baseline configuration of my project, it says spec baseline: 'SmaCC' with: [ spec repository: 'github://apblack/SmaCC:working' ]. Later, I have a parser that depends on 'SmaCC'. However, when I load my baseline, it seems to load from the current branch of the local clone of apblack/SmaCC in my file system. That is, my local clone was on branch master, so master was loaded, rather than working. What am I doing wrong, and how do I fix the baseline so that the correct branch is loaded? Andrew The complete baseline is as follows: baseline: spec <baseline> spec for: #'common' do: [ spec baseline: 'SmaCC' with: [ spec repository: 'github://apblack/SmaCC:working' ]. spec baseline: 'FileDialog' with: [ spec repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository' ]. spec package: 'Grace-Scope'. spec package: 'Grace-Names' with: [ spec requires: {'Grace-Parser' . 'Grace-Scope'} ]. spec package: 'Grace-Parser' with: [ spec requires: {'SmaCC' . 'Grace-Scope'} ]. spec package: 'Grace-IDE' with: [ spec requires: {'FileDialog' . 'Grace-Compiler'} ]. spec package: 'Grace-Compiler' with: [ spec requires: {'Grace-Parser' . 'Grace-Names'} ]. spec package: 'GraceTests' with: [ spec requires: {'Grace-Parser' . 'Grace-Names'} ] ]

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk

by Ben Coman

On 4 December 2017 at 12:15, horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Speaking of which, one of my readers said he tried out Pharo recently and > found the documentation wanting. He was expecting a Getting Started guide at > the pharo.org website and couldn't find one. So he had to blunder around a > bit. Thanks for passing that on. Documentation has been improving but a quick start would probably be useful. Its the sort of thing I look for in other systems to skim to evaluate how interesting they are and if they are worth investing time in. cheers -ben > I told him he could've looked at "Chapter 2: A quick tour of Pharo" in the > *Pharo by Example 5* book, but he's right. There ought to be something > obvious at the pharo.org website that helps a newbie get Pharo up and > running, understand how to basically use the Pharo IDE, and write the > standard "Hello World" program. > > I checked out squeak.org and found the same documentation issue! Why is > this??? > > > Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas-2 wrote >> Documentation is going well. In fact the stuff that kept me away of >> Squeak, despite of its potential was the lack of documentation. "The >> artifact is the curriculum" was to powerful but too heavy. You need a >> way to understand how to deconstruct and navigate the artifact that is >> usually anchored with the culture you have (books and reading) instead >> of only launching inspectors os browsing the code. Grafoscopio is my >> attempt to fill that gap between the world of objects/simulations and >> the world of scripts/documents. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Offray

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] How to remove method body?

by Stephane Ducasse

Thanks steven I was finally doing | newTree | newTree := (ObjSkeletonMock >> #methodToSkeletonize2) ast body: (ObjSkeletonMock >> #returnSelf) ast body. newTree formattedCode. ObjSkeletonMock compile: newTree formattedCode classified: #foo On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Steven Costiou <steven.costiou(a)kloum.io> wrote: > For example that works for me: > > |ast| > ast := (MyClass >> #printOn:) ast. > ast body: (MyClass >> #returnSelf) ast body. > MyClass compile: ast newSource > > Le 2017-12-03 23:42, Steven Costiou a Ã©crit : > > Hi, > > just after your modifications, from the compiled method try: > > ObjSkeletonMock compile: self ast newSource > > Maybe not the most elegant but it works. > > > > Steven. > > Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Stephane Ducasse a Ã©crit : > > Hi > > to prepare some code for students I want to convert methods into a > kind of method skeleton > ie > > printOn: aStream > "super nice comment" > lk;lk; > kl;;kl > k;lkl;k > ^ 42 > > into > > printOn: aStream > "super nice comment" > ^ self > > any idea? > > In the past I know that we could access the method comment but I do > not find how to access the method signature (selector + variables). > > So I'm trying at the AST level. > > ((ObjSkeletonMock >> #methodToSkeletonize2) ast body: > (ObjSkeletonMock >> #returnSelf) ast body). > > But I do not get how I can recompile this. > > Stef > > > > -- > kloum.io > > > > -- > kloum.io

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Simplifying a File reference (Ben Coman)

by Alistair Grant

On 4 December 2017 at 01:48, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > On 4 December 2017 at 08:25, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok(a)cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote: >> >> >> Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >>> >>> While 'canonicalize' obviously fits, it seems a bit exotic and a tongue >>> twist at five syllables. >>> I wonder if 'flatten' might also be suitable. Is there some concept this >>> wouldn't cover? Just my personal preference, but I think canonicalize is better in this case. Flatten to me implies taking all the entries in a collection and removing the structure. In this case, we aren't removing the structure completely, the order of the segments still has meaning. >> There are two distinct issues. >> (1) Can this file name be put into a form that would have the >> same reference as the original whatever the state of the >> file system? (That is, whatever the same of the file >> system, the original name and the new form will reference >> to the same thing or neither will refer to anything, as >> long as I don't change directory.) >> >> For this, it _is_ safe to collapse // to / (except at the >> beginning) and to elide "." entries, but because of >> symbolic links it is *not* safe to elide ".." entries. >> >> (2) Give me an absolute path name that does not contain any >> symbolic links and will refer to the same file as long >> as no directories along the way are renamed or deleted. >> > > Thanks for you input. Thats a nice framework to consider this. > Someone else will have to advise the intent of the method. > > >> >> There is no POSIX function to do (1). >> The POSIX function that does (2) is realpath(2). >> If the Smalltalk method is intended to have the same semantics >> as the realpath() function, it should have the same name, >> possibly spelled #realPath. #canonicalize isn't intended to have the same semantics as realpath. Like it's python and java equivalents, it explicitly ignores symbolic links. It should be possible to implement realpath, however the current stat() / lstat() functionality is broken in Pharo. I've submitted an enhancement that fixes this, hopefully it will be merged in soon. :-) See https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18279/isSymlink-seems-to-be-broken-on-Lin… Cheers, Alistair > btw, my personal preference where we echo another api is to use identical > capitalization. > I believe this reduces friction transferring knowledge between domains. > Lucky for me Pharo at least partially follows that convention e.g. > `basename`... > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/blob/development/src/FileSystem-Core… > > cheers -ben > >> There is a Solaris function called resolvepath() which is subtly >> different from realpath() and not generally available.

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk

by horrido

Speaking of which, one of my readers said he tried out Pharo recently and found the documentation wanting. He was expecting a Getting Started guide at the pharo.org website and couldn't find one. So he had to blunder around a bit. I told him he could've looked at "Chapter 2: A quick tour of Pharo" in the *Pharo by Example 5* book, but he's right. There ought to be something obvious at the pharo.org website that helps a newbie get Pharo up and running, understand how to basically use the Pharo IDE, and write the standard "Hello World" program. I checked out squeak.org and found the same documentation issue! Why is this??? Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas-2 wrote > Documentation is going well. In fact the stuff that kept me away of > Squeak, despite of its potential was the lack of documentation. "The > artifact is the curriculum" was to powerful but too heavy. You need a > way to understand how to deconstruct and navigate the artifact that is > usually anchored with the culture you have (books and reading) instead > of only launching inspectors os browsing the code. Grafoscopio is my > attempt to fill that gap between the world of objects/simulations and > the world of scripts/documents. > > Cheers, > > Offray -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Simplifying a File reference (Ben Coman)

by Ben Coman

On 4 December 2017 at 08:25, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok(a)cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote: > > Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >> While 'canonicalize' obviously fits, it seems a bit exotic and a tongue >> twist at five syllables. >> I wonder if 'flatten' might also be suitable. Is there some concept this >> wouldn't cover? >> > > There are two distinct issues. > (1) Can this file name be put into a form that would have the > same reference as the original whatever the state of the > file system? (That is, whatever the same of the file > system, the original name and the new form will reference > to the same thing or neither will refer to anything, as > long as I don't change directory.) > > For this, it _is_ safe to collapse // to / (except at the > beginning) and to elide "." entries, but because of > symbolic links it is *not* safe to elide ".." entries. > > (2) Give me an absolute path name that does not contain any > symbolic links and will refer to the same file as long > as no directories along the way are renamed or deleted. > > Thanks for you input. Thats a nice framework to consider this. Someone else will have to advise the intent of the method. > There is no POSIX function to do (1). > The POSIX function that does (2) is realpath(2). > If the Smalltalk method is intended to have the same semantics > as the realpath() function, it should have the same name, > possibly spelled #realPath. > btw, my personal preference where we echo another api is to use identical capitalization. I believe this reduces friction transferring knowledge between domains. Lucky for me Pharo at least partially follows that convention e.g. `basename`... https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/blob/development/src/FileSystem-Core… cheers -ben There is a Solaris function called resolvepath() which is subtly > different from realpath() and not generally available. > >

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Simplifying a File reference (Ben Coman)

by Richard A. O'Keefe

Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > While 'canonicalize' obviously fits, it seems a bit exotic and a tongue > twist at five syllables. > I wonder if 'flatten' might also be suitable. Is there some concept this > wouldn't cover? There are two distinct issues. (1) Can this file name be put into a form that would have the same reference as the original whatever the state of the file system? (That is, whatever the same of the file system, the original name and the new form will reference to the same thing or neither will refer to anything, as long as I don't change directory.) For this, it _is_ safe to collapse // to / (except at the beginning) and to elide "." entries, but because of symbolic links it is *not* safe to elide ".." entries. (2) Give me an absolute path name that does not contain any symbolic links and will refer to the same file as long as no directories along the way are renamed or deleted. There is no POSIX function to do (1). The POSIX function that does (2) is realpath(2). If the Smalltalk method is intended to have the same semantics as the realpath() function, it should have the same name, possibly spelled #realPath. There is a Solaris function called resolvepath() which is subtly different from realpath() and not generally available.

Dec. 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] How to remove method body?

by Steven Costiou

For example that works for me: |ast| ast := (MyClass >> #printOn:) ast. ast body: (MyClass >> #returnSelf) ast body. MyClass compile: ast newSource Le 2017-12-03 23:42, Steven Costiou a Ã©crit : > Hi, > > just after your modifications, from the compiled method try: > > ObjSkeletonMock compile: self ast newSource > > Maybe not the most elegant but it works. > > Steven. > > Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Stephane Ducasse a Ã©crit : > >> Hi >> >> to prepare some code for students I want to convert methods into a >> kind of method skeleton >> ie >> >> printOn: aStream >> "super nice comment" >> lk;lk; >> kl;;kl >> k;lkl;k >> ^ 42 >> >> into >> >> printOn: aStream >> "super nice comment" >> ^ self >> >> any idea? >> >> In the past I know that we could access the method comment but I do >> not find how to access the method signature (selector + variables). >> >> So I'm trying at the AST level. >> >> ((ObjSkeletonMock >> #methodToSkeletonize2) ast body: >> (ObjSkeletonMock >> #returnSelf) ast body). >> >> But I do not get how I can recompile this. >> >> Stef > > -- > kloum.io -- kloum.io

Dec. 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] How to remove method body?

by Steven Costiou

Hi, just after your modifications, from the compiled method try: ObjSkeletonMock compile: self ast newSource Maybe not the most elegant but it works. Steven. Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Stephane Ducasse a Ã©crit : > Hi > > to prepare some code for students I want to convert methods into a > kind of method skeleton > ie > > printOn: aStream > "super nice comment" > lk;lk; > kl;;kl > k;lkl;k > ^ 42 > > into > > printOn: aStream > "super nice comment" > ^ self > > any idea? > > In the past I know that we could access the method comment but I do > not find how to access the method signature (selector + variables). > > So I'm trying at the AST level. > > ((ObjSkeletonMock >> #methodToSkeletonize2) ast body: > (ObjSkeletonMock >> #returnSelf) ast body). > > But I do not get how I can recompile this. > > Stef -- kloum.io

Dec. 3, 2017

How to remove method body?

by Stephane Ducasse

Hi to prepare some code for students I want to convert methods into a kind of method skeleton ie printOn: aStream "super nice comment" lk;lk; kl;;kl k;lkl;k ^ 42 into printOn: aStream "super nice comment" ^ self any idea? In the past I know that we could access the method comment but I do not find how to access the method signature (selector + variables). So I'm trying at the AST level. ((ObjSkeletonMock >> #methodToSkeletonize2) ast body: (ObjSkeletonMock >> #returnSelf) ast body). But I do not get how I can recompile this. Stef

Dec. 3, 2017