February 2019 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] How to write out simple Json?

by Richard O'Keefe

1. A JSON "object" corresponds to some kind of dictionary in Smalltalk. 2. {#a -> 1. #b -> 2} is NOT A DICTIONARY. It is an Array of Associations. 3. {#a -> 1. #b -> 2} asDictionary *is* a dictionary. 4. My Smalltalk allows #{#a -> 1. #b -> 2} -- how could I let it be less expressive than -- the language named for a snake? On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 02:57, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > As I merrily chat to myself - I noticed that STONWriter almost does what I > need - it just complains in #writeAssociation: so I make a subclass > STONJSONWriter and override: > > writeAssociation: association > âdonât smack meâ¦. > jsonMode > ifTrue: [ self error: 'wrong object class for JSON mode' > ]." > self > encodeKey: association key > value: association value > > I get exactly what I would expect - valid Json from simple Collections, > Associations and Array. > > So would it be handy to have such a writer in the image (or let STONWriter > be more configurable for this?) > > Tim > > p.s. my finally example would then be: > > ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. > 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. > 'exercises' -> > {'slug' -> 'hello'. > 'id' -> 55. > 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } > }. > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > (STONJSONWriter on: (stream)) > jsonMode: true; > prettyPrint: true; > writeList: ex ]. > > > On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:45, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > > > Just to add more flavour to this - it seems quite wordy that we have to > do this (or equivalent) to write some config. > > > > ex := OrderedDictionary new > > at: 'track' put: 'pharo'; > > at: 'language' put: 'smalltalk'; > > at: 'exercises' put: ( > > OrderedDictionary new > > at: 'slug' put: 'hello'; > > at: 'id' put: 55; > > at: 'topics' put: #('a' 'b' 'c'); > > yourself ); > > yourself. > > > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > > (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; > > mapInstVarsFor: Association; > > nextPut: ex ]. > > > > So Iâm still wondering the NeoJSONObjectMapping can do something easy > for Association other than simply mapInstVars? > > > > > >> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to > make this less wordy when we are specifying it? > >> > >> E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesnât work (as > you have $â and not $â ) > >> > >> ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. > >> 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. > >> 'exercises' -> > >> {'slug' -> 'hello'. > >> 'id' -> 55. > >> 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } > >> }. > >> > >> String streamContents: [ :stream | > >> (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. > >> > >> I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put: > >> > >> String streamContents: [ :stream | > >> (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; > >> "mapInstVarsFor: Association;" > >> nextPut: ex ]. > >> > >> But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I > uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : âpharo" }, > >> > >> So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will > write out the key in a string and the value in a string? > >> > >> Iâm quite suprised we canât easily write out fragments of Json in our > code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and > then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { > x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like: > >> > >> Config new at: âidâ is: 123; at: ânameâ is: âTimâ; at: âexercisesâ is: > #(1 2 3). > >> > >> And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing? > >> > >> But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be > terribly common? > >> > >> Tim > >> > >>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >>> > >>> STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary. > >>> > >>> JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves. > >>> > >>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config > file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems > like creating items like: > >>>> > >>>> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name } > >>>> > >>>> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { > ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } > everywhereâ¦. > >>>> > >>>> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about > Assocations too. I just want a simple output like: > >>>> { "id" : 12, "name" : "timâ } > >>>> > >>>> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious. > >>>> > >>>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Richard Kenneth Eng is NOT Mr. Smalltalk

by Michael Zeder

Dear community, I am a silent follower of this list. Now, I feel urged to speak up not on a technical, but a community matter. Every village deserves it's fool. And a wise man does not feed the troll (i did, and doing it right now, sorry). But if this fool is about to take over a considerable amount of public control, the community has to stand up against it. So, I put this to you: I frequently research on Smalltalk-related topics (computer scientist, try to devote time to open source dev next to my small enterprise). And more and more, I notice that Google search results show very much on top of the result list contributions by a self-appointed "Mr. Smalltalk" aka R.K.Eng. who excels at SEO and flooding social media. While self-initiatives are a thriving force for open communities, in this case: * one individual is hoging credit and applause, without ever having commited a single line of code, putting himself into focus (without having any profound knowledge; to the contrary: he shows a deep ignorance towards "our" and other languages, throwing around dubious advertisment slogans), * ...is throwing around with wrong claims (pulling off any potentially interested developer), * ...is starting pointless flame wars against other programming languages (again: detrimental to our community) * ...is doing SEO to make Google show his own results before FOSS community or sciences pages. * ...is getting traction (and money) for his own ends (publicity for the self-appointed "Mr. Smalltalk") * ...denies community leadership by merit (Pharo core developers do know, what they have created and where they want to go in the future, and which audience we should target, they don't need a clueless person telling them to "get into TIOBE index", just for example) * is claiming credit for the work, others have done, fostering his own publicity (not the interests of Pharo/VisualWorks etc). Here is the Medium thread that made me write this mail to you all. https://medium.com/@michael.z3d3r/who-is-this-self-appointed-mr-9ad9a18676eb https://medium.com/@richardeng/even-people-who-understand-prototypal-inheri… the bottom line of our tedious flame war in a screenshot: PS: a side note on Javascript (with lower S). wether you love or hate this quirky lovechild of Lisp and Self/Smalltalk, telling JS developers they are stupid and that they should abandon powerful Vue.js, for example, in favor of Amber Smalltalk [cudos to Amber devs! great thing!]) is utterly stupid! Every professional Javascript developer, who is trying Smalltalk the first time, because he/she has read in a post of "Mr. Smalltalk", that it is better, will instantly dismiss Smalltalk and be disappointed. I love Smalltalk (certainly more than JS), but it is detrimental, to throw around with these wrong claims (which in the end are only a self-serving, ego-centric, attention-greedy campaign to promote "Mr. Smalltalk" himself, a total newbie, who claims credit for the work of others). My suggestion: This community is open and inclusive. But we should clarify, that if a single individual repeatedly goes against those, who do the actual work, claims credits, insults people, then this person is not fit to be part of this community. It sheds a very bad light onto us. --> If R.K. Eng cannot respect community structure and decisions, we should exclude him officially and publicly take distance from this person. Thank you for your attention. Michael Zeder

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Interval form: x to: y when x > y - or how to count down...

by Richard O'Keefe

I would expect 1:0 to give me an empty sequence because (a) for all other natural numbers n, 1:n gives me a sequence of n numbers, and (b) how else am I supposed to get an empty sequence? Under your interpretation, (x to: y) would never be empty. This has absolutely nothing to do with C. As I commented, every programming language I know except S uses a default increment of +1 in counted loops, if it allows default increments at all. Fortran, Algol 68, Pascal, PL/I, the seq(1) command in Unix, Haskell, the `seq' function in Erlang, between/3 in Prolog, OCaml, F#, InterLISP-D, and so it goes. Fortran is an interesting case, because Fortran 66 left DO label id = lower,upper unspecified when lower > upper and several compilers made such loops execute once, to the point where programmer tended to think the standard required that, but Fortran 77 nailed it down: NO iterations in that case. Here's a typical use of #to:do: s := 0. 1 to: a size do: [:i | a at: i put: (s := (a at: i) + s)]. Why would you think it a good idea for this to crash if the array is empty? Smalltalk being Smalltalk, nothing stops you adding through: end do: aBlock self to: end by: (end < self ifTrue: [-1] ifFalse: [1]) do: aBlock. to Integer if you really want to. Oh, there's an ambiguity. Should 5 through 1 mean 5,4,3,2,1 or 1,2,3,4,5? Both can be argued for. On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 02:03, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > Hi Richard - but why would you expect 1 to: 0 to give you an empty > sequence? > > If I inspect â0 to: 1â I see: > 1 -> 0 > 2 -> 1 > > So I would expect â1 to: 0â to see: > 1 -> 1 > 2 -> 0. > > I asked for a sequence going from 1 down to 0 (in my mind). Knowing about > all the by: -1 stuff seems very Câish. > > Of course, I get that maybe it will break peoples existing code (and maybe > that would be why it never gets changed) - but it still feels very strange. > Or am I missing something? > > Tim > > On 28 Feb 2019, at 12:38, Richard O'Keefe <raoknz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Of the couple of hundred programming languages I have > used, there is precisely one that does what you expect > (the S programming language, as implemented in R). > And it is a major pain in the posterior with no upside > that I can discern. > > Suppose I want a sequence of n consecutive integers > beginning with 1. In Smalltalk, (1 to: n) does the > job. In R, 1:n *almost* does the job. But what > happens when n = 0? Smalltalk gives me the right > answer: an empty sequence. R gives me (1,0). That > means that *every* *flaming* *time* I write > for (i in 1:n) {...} > I have to take special care to ensure that n is not > 0, sometimes even having to whack in an extra > if (n > 0) for (i in 1:n) {...} > > Trawling through my Smalltalk code, I find that about > 6.8% of my counted loops are by: -1, > 0.7% of them are by: a negative number other than -1, > 2.5% of them are by: a positive number other than 1, > 90 % are just to:do: with no by: > Inspecting some of the 90% showed that many of them > would go catastrophically wrong if 1 to: 0 do: > performed its body > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 03:58, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >> I've just been caught out with Intervals - why can't you do: >> 5 to: 1 do: [ :i | Transcript show: i printString] (eg a negative >> interval)? >> >> if you want to iterate down a series of numbers do you really have to do: >> 5 to: 1 by: -1 do: [â¦ >> >> I always assumed that if x > y the step was automatically -1 (but its >> not). >> >> I asked on Discord - and someone pointed out that if you use variables it >> could be ambiguous - but is it really? I donât know if other smalltalks do >> it this way (I vaguely recall Dolphin going down, but not sure). >> >> Either way the Interval comment should mention this - and Iâll correct it >> when I get the wisdom of the crowd here. >> >> Tim >> > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Mac OS X test [ smaller image ]

by Hilaire

Thanks for the feedback Cedrick. We have all different experiences, I guess depending on the OS X version. Did you try to drag the DrGeo.app in the Application location and start it from there? Hilaire Le 28/02/2019 Ã 13:08, CÃ©drick BÃ©ler a Ã©critÂ : > Can someone with privilege to the Application location, test this new > DrGeo bundle[2]? THANKS ! -- Dr. Geo http://drgeo.eu

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How to write out simple Json?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

This is wrong !! Think about it, what would then happen with a mixed list ? { #key->#value. 1. true } That would generate invalid JSON. > On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:56, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > As I merrily chat to myself - I noticed that STONWriter almost does what I need - it just complains in #writeAssociation: so I make a subclass STONJSONWriter and override: > > writeAssociation: association > âdonât smack meâ¦. > jsonMode > ifTrue: [ self error: 'wrong object class for JSON mode' ]." > self > encodeKey: association key > value: association value > > I get exactly what I would expect - valid Json from simple Collections, Associations and Array. > > So would it be handy to have such a writer in the image (or let STONWriter be more configurable for this?) > > Tim > > p.s. my finally example would then be: > > ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. > 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. > 'exercises' -> > {'slug' -> 'hello'. > 'id' -> 55. > 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } > }. > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > (STONJSONWriter on: (stream)) > jsonMode: true; > prettyPrint: true; > writeList: ex ]. > >> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:45, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >> Just to add more flavour to this - it seems quite wordy that we have to do this (or equivalent) to write some config. >> >> ex := OrderedDictionary new >> at: 'track' put: 'pharo'; >> at: 'language' put: 'smalltalk'; >> at: 'exercises' put: ( >> OrderedDictionary new >> at: 'slug' put: 'hello'; >> at: 'id' put: 55; >> at: 'topics' put: #('a' 'b' 'c'); >> yourself ); >> yourself. >> >> String streamContents: [ :stream | >> (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; >> mapInstVarsFor: Association; >> nextPut: ex ]. >> >> So Iâm still wondering the NeoJSONObjectMapping can do something easy for Association other than simply mapInstVars? >> >> >>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to make this less wordy when we are specifying it? >>> >>> E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesnât work (as you have $â and not $â ) >>> >>> ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. >>> 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. >>> 'exercises' -> >>> {'slug' -> 'hello'. >>> 'id' -> 55. >>> 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } >>> }. >>> >>> String streamContents: [ :stream | >>> (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. >>> >>> I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put: >>> >>> String streamContents: [ :stream | >>> (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; >>> "mapInstVarsFor: Association;" >>> nextPut: ex ]. >>> >>> But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : âpharo" }, >>> >>> So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will write out the key in a string and the value in a string? >>> >>> Iâm quite suprised we canât easily write out fragments of Json in our code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like: >>> >>> Config new at: âidâ is: 123; at: ânameâ is: âTimâ; at: âexercisesâ is: #(1 2 3). >>> >>> And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing? >>> >>> But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be terribly common? >>> >>> Tim >>> >>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>> STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary. >>>> >>>> JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves. >>>> >>>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems like creating items like: >>>>> >>>>> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name } >>>>> >>>>> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } everywhereâ¦. >>>>> >>>>> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about Assocations too. I just want a simple output like: >>>>> { "id" : 12, "name" : "timâ } >>>>> >>>>> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How to write out simple Json?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

I really don't understand. JSON needs Dictionaries and Arrays (or other Sequenceable Collections). That has nothing to do with Pharo or how NeoJSON or STONJSON are implemented - it is what defines JSON. Of course, compatible objects work as well (NeoJSONObject is an example). You could make your own. Since there is no literal syntax in Pharo for a Dictionary, you have to write something like >>> { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary This has been discussed for years, I won't start that again. The above is short enough for me, but a bit of a pain when nesting. Part of the power of Pharo is a very simple syntax, we can express an awful lot with very few constructs. Your mapping examples won't work: you try to make something that is not a map but a list of associations into a map, that is simply not possible, sorry. > On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:45, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > Just to add more flavour to this - it seems quite wordy that we have to do this (or equivalent) to write some config. > > ex := OrderedDictionary new > at: 'track' put: 'pharo'; > at: 'language' put: 'smalltalk'; > at: 'exercises' put: ( > OrderedDictionary new > at: 'slug' put: 'hello'; > at: 'id' put: 55; > at: 'topics' put: #('a' 'b' 'c'); > yourself ); > yourself. > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; > mapInstVarsFor: Association; > nextPut: ex ]. > > So Iâm still wondering the NeoJSONObjectMapping can do something easy for Association other than simply mapInstVars? > > >> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >> Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to make this less wordy when we are specifying it? >> >> E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesnât work (as you have $â and not $â ) >> >> ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. >> 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. >> 'exercises' -> >> {'slug' -> 'hello'. >> 'id' -> 55. >> 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } >> }. >> >> String streamContents: [ :stream | >> (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. >> >> I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put: >> >> String streamContents: [ :stream | >> (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; >> "mapInstVarsFor: Association;" >> nextPut: ex ]. >> >> But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : âpharo" }, >> >> So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will write out the key in a string and the value in a string? >> >> Iâm quite suprised we canât easily write out fragments of Json in our code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like: >> >> Config new at: âidâ is: 123; at: ânameâ is: âTimâ; at: âexercisesâ is: #(1 2 3). >> >> And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing? >> >> But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be terribly common? >> >> Tim >> >>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary. >>> >>> JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves. >>> >>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems like creating items like: >>>> >>>> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name } >>>> >>>> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } everywhereâ¦. >>>> >>>> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about Assocations too. I just want a simple output like: >>>> { "id" : 12, "name" : "timâ } >>>> >>>> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious. >>>> >>>> Tim >>> >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How to write out simple Json?

by Tim Mackinnon

As I merrily chat to myself - I noticed that STONWriter almost does what I need - it just complains in #writeAssociation: so I make a subclass STONJSONWriter and override: writeAssociation: association âdonât smack meâ¦. jsonMode ifTrue: [ self error: 'wrong object class for JSON mode' ]." self encodeKey: association key value: association value I get exactly what I would expect - valid Json from simple Collections, Associations and Array. So would it be handy to have such a writer in the image (or let STONWriter be more configurable for this?) Tim p.s. my finally example would then be: ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. 'exercises' -> {'slug' -> 'hello'. 'id' -> 55. 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } }. String streamContents: [ :stream | (STONJSONWriter on: (stream)) jsonMode: true; prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. > On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:45, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > Just to add more flavour to this - it seems quite wordy that we have to do this (or equivalent) to write some config. > > ex := OrderedDictionary new > at: 'track' put: 'pharo'; > at: 'language' put: 'smalltalk'; > at: 'exercises' put: ( > OrderedDictionary new > at: 'slug' put: 'hello'; > at: 'id' put: 55; > at: 'topics' put: #('a' 'b' 'c'); > yourself ); > yourself. > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; > mapInstVarsFor: Association; > nextPut: ex ]. > > So Iâm still wondering the NeoJSONObjectMapping can do something easy for Association other than simply mapInstVars? > > >> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >> Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to make this less wordy when we are specifying it? >> >> E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesnât work (as you have $â and not $â ) >> >> ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. >> 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. >> 'exercises' -> >> {'slug' -> 'hello'. >> 'id' -> 55. >> 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } >> }. >> >> String streamContents: [ :stream | >> (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. >> >> I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put: >> >> String streamContents: [ :stream | >> (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; >> "mapInstVarsFor: Association;" >> nextPut: ex ]. >> >> But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : âpharo" }, >> >> So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will write out the key in a string and the value in a string? >> >> Iâm quite suprised we canât easily write out fragments of Json in our code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like: >> >> Config new at: âidâ is: 123; at: ânameâ is: âTimâ; at: âexercisesâ is: #(1 2 3). >> >> And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing? >> >> But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be terribly common? >> >> Tim >> >>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary. >>> >>> JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves. >>> >>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems like creating items like: >>>> >>>> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name } >>>> >>>> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } everywhereâ¦. >>>> >>>> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about Assocations too. I just want a simple output like: >>>> { "id" : 12, "name" : "timâ } >>>> >>>> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious. >>>> >>>> Tim >>> >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How to write out simple Json?

by Tim Mackinnon

Just to add more flavour to this - it seems quite wordy that we have to do this (or equivalent) to write some config. ex := OrderedDictionary new at: 'track' put: 'pharo'; at: 'language' put: 'smalltalk'; at: 'exercises' put: ( OrderedDictionary new at: 'slug' put: 'hello'; at: 'id' put: 55; at: 'topics' put: #('a' 'b' 'c'); yourself ); yourself. String streamContents: [ :stream | (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; mapInstVarsFor: Association; nextPut: ex ]. So Iâm still wondering the NeoJSONObjectMapping can do something easy for Association other than simply mapInstVars? > On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to make this less wordy when we are specifying it? > > E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesnât work (as you have $â and not $â ) > > ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. > 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. > 'exercises' -> > {'slug' -> 'hello'. > 'id' -> 55. > 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } > }. > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. > > I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put: > > String streamContents: [ :stream | > (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; > "mapInstVarsFor: Association;" > nextPut: ex ]. > > But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : âpharo" }, > > So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will write out the key in a string and the value in a string? > > Iâm quite suprised we canât easily write out fragments of Json in our code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like: > > Config new at: âidâ is: 123; at: ânameâ is: âTimâ; at: âexercisesâ is: #(1 2 3). > > And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing? > > But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be terribly common? > > Tim > >> On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary. >> >> JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves. >> >>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>> >>> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems like creating items like: >>> >>> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name } >>> >>> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } everywhereâ¦. >>> >>> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about Assocations too. I just want a simple output like: >>> { "id" : 12, "name" : "timâ } >>> >>> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious. >>> >>> Tim >> >> > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How to write out simple Json?

by Tim Mackinnon

Hi Sven - is there no convenience shortcut we can use in our code to make this less wordy when we are specifying it? E.g. the following is very convenient to write - but doesnât work (as you have $â and not $â ) ex := { 'track'-> 'pharo'. 'language' -> 'smalltalk'. 'exercises' -> {'slug' -> 'hello'. 'id' -> 55. 'topics' -> #('a' 'b' 'c') } }. String streamContents: [ :stream | (STONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; writeList: ex ]. I had thought maybe NeoJSON might help and put: String streamContents: [ :stream | (NeoJSONWriter on: (stream)) prettyPrint: true; "mapInstVarsFor: Association;" nextPut: ex ]. But I get the error about missing an association mapping. If I uncomment that bit - I get things like: { "value" : âpharo" }, So is there a way I can write a simple mapper for Association that will write out the key in a string and the value in a string? Iâm quite suprised we canât easily write out fragments of Json in our code in a light weight way? Or do I need to make a proper Config object and then teach it how to map properly such that rather than fiddling with our { x->y } dictionary sugar I do something like: Config new at: âidâ is: 123; at: ânameâ is: âTimâ; at: âexercisesâ is: #(1 2 3). And I guess at:is: can do the Association asDictionary thing? But I thought Neo might give me something like that, as it must be terribly common? Tim > On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > STONJSON toString: { #id->1. #name->'tim' } asDictionary. > > JSON cannot deal with Associations by themselves. > >> On 28 Feb 2019, at 14:05, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >> I am stumped about how to write out some simple json (for a config file). I didn't think I need Neo, and STONJSON would be fine but it seems like creating items like: >> >> { 'id'-> self id. 'name' -> self name } >> >> gives an error about the association. I think you have to do: { ('id'-> self id) asDictionary. ('name' -> self name) asDictionary } everywhereâ¦. >> >> But when I switch over to NeoJsonWriter it also complains about Assocations too. I just want a simple output like: >> { "id" : 12, "name" : "timâ } >> >> I thought it was simple to do this? Am I missing something obvious. >> >> Tim > >

Feb. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Repeateble URLs - REST?

by sergio ruiz

I like that http://www.bagelconcertfinder.com uses Seaside and also my Twitter Bootstrap Library. Thanks so much for your library! I have built several applications in seaside, and always dig using it.. itâs my go to framework when I do a project on my own.. Seaside by default works with stateful (web) components - making it easy to develop - but possibly hard to scale to be the next Twitter, Amazon, ... ;) most everything I work on will never be the next twitter or amazon.. so i am fine tweaking here or there.. I have thought about doing exactly what you are talking about.. In my day job, we use LOTS of Angular. I thought about setting up a REST interface using Teapot, and using angular for the web part.. This provides for a much more interactive user experience, but I also totally love how seaside works.. Maybe for my CMS type project, Iâll use Teapot/Angular.. I will have to think about this for a bitâ¦ I did a project last year where I used teapot in conjunction with an SMS interface to create a very useful bot.. This was incredibly handy.. ---- peace, sergio photographer, journalist, visionary Public Key: http://bit.ly/29z9fG0 #BitMessage BM-NBaswViL21xqgg9STRJjaJaUoyiNe2dV http://www.codeandmusic.com http://www.twitter.com/sergio_101 http://www.facebook.com/sergio101

Feb. 28, 2019