- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Google Protobuf and usage of Slots

by Holger Freyther

> On 5. Mar 2019, at 19:06, HenrikNergaard5 <h_n91(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Holger, > >> My plan of action is to start with a protobuf compiler/model and then look >> into binding the gRPC C implementation to Pharo. > > I have an almost complete parser and compiler (class generation) > implementation of protobuf in Pharo around somewhere... > I cant quite remember the state of it, but I think everything is implemented > parsing wise expect the gRPC part. > > Instead of using slots the compiler generates accessor methods for each > variable, initialization, custom encoding and decoding based on its message > definition. That would be good timing. I have hand created enough descriptions to be able to materialize the descriptor.proto (the model definition in itself) and class generation is next. I have experimented (by using the right super class) with automatic selector creation and I think it will work if tweaked to handle collections/repeated fields correctly. A class/type definition currently reads as: PBTypeMessage subclass: #GBPFieldDescriptorProto slots: { #name => (PBTypeString asSlot fieldName: 'name'; fieldNumber: 1; beOptional). #extendee => (PBTypeString asSlot fieldName: 'extendee'; fieldNumber: 2; beOptional). #number => (PBTypeInt32 asSlot fieldName: 'number'; fieldNumber: 3; beOptional). #label => (GBPFieldDescriptorProto_Label asSlot fieldName: 'label'; fieldNumber: 4; beOptional). #type => (GBPFieldDescriptorProto_Type asSlot fieldName: 'type'; fieldNumber: 5; beOptional). #type_name => (PBTypeString asSlot fieldName: 'type_name'; fieldNumber: 6; beOptional). #default_value => (PBTypeString asSlot fieldName: 'default_value'; fieldNumber: 7; beOptional). #options => (GBPFieldOptions asSlot fieldName: 'options'; fieldNumber: 8; beOptional). #json_name => (PBTypeString asSlot fieldName: 'json_name'; fieldNumber: 10; beOptional) } classVariables: { } package: 'Protobuf-Compiler-Definitions' > i can probably dig it up and make it publicly available if it is of > interest. That would be helpful! > > Best regards, > Henrik > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >

March 7, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Why can't a Bag answer as a dictionary?

by Richard O'Keefe

Handling <some bag> as: Dictionary is really quite straightforward. Add a one-line method to Bag: Bag>> associationsDo: aBlock contents associationsDo: aBlock. This is a good idea anyway, because currently there is a bug where aBag associationsDo: aBlock fails to pass Associations to aBlock. Once you have done that, 'abracadabra' asBag as: Dictionary just works. This one simple addition - makes aBag associationsDo: aBlock work when it didn't before - makes aBag asDictionary work - makes aBag as: Dictionary work - makes Dictionary newFrom: aBag work On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 07:35, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > I am still not convinced. > > > On 6 Mar 2019, at 19:24, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > > > I still am tempted to make asDictionary work - because the the moment > you get a #key , DNU error - which is definitely not right. > > The error might not be super clear, but it is not wrong, the elements of > your collection do not respond to #key, a necessity to create a dictionary > from a collection of associations/pairs. > > Also, if you modify #asDictionary like that, then > > <some bag> as: #Dictionary > > will still fail. > > This is all not so simple as it seems. > > > So should Bag asDictionary give you a reasonable dictionary, or should > it throw a proper exception - something like: > > > > DomainError signal: â#asDictionary not supported, use #valueAndCountsâ > > > > Is that better - or do we accept that it inherits it from Collection and > so can do something useful? > > > > Tim > > > >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 18:11, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > >> > >> And when asking the object: > >> > >> #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag isDictionary > >> > >> we get false. So, not, not a dictionary. > >> > >> I still have been using #valuesAndCounts to get the dictionary out of a > bag on several occasions. > >> > >> And is useful indeed. > >> > >> #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag occurrencesOf: 2 > >> > >> and > >> > >> #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag valuesAndCounts at: 2 > >> > >> seem pretty much the same. > >> > >> But in this age of streams/reactive streams and lazy evaluations, what > do we have in Pharo on that front? > >> > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > >> I was just explaining how it is now, what I think the rationale is > behind it. > >> > >> I understand #asDictionary as working on a collection of > pairs/associations (because it basically goes to #withAll:). > >> > >> A bag is just a collection that is optimised for many duplicates, the > fact that you have values and counts is more an implementation detail than > an intrinsic property. > >> > >> The conversion that you want, and that already exists in > #valuesAndCounts is one interpretation of what a bag is, not the only one. > A bag is foremost a collection of things. > >> > >> I am not immediately convinced that #valuesAndCounts should be the > default #asDictionary interpretation. > >> > >> What about the inverse for example ? > >> > >> { #foo->2. #bar->3 } asDictionary asBag. > >> > >> But this is certainly an interesting discussion. > >> > >> > On 6 Mar 2019, at 16:23, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >> > > >> > As Richard said - as a bag is relationship between keys and > frequencies, I would expect it to be able to convert to a dictionary. > >> > > >> > It displays in an inspector just like a Dictionary - which is why I > figured I could convert to pass it back to the exercise that was written > with Dictionaries in mind. > >> > > >> > <PastedGraphic-3.png> > >> > > >> > > >> > The code to fix it is quite simple, but on these kinds of things - I > thought it worth checking before submitting a PR. > >> > > >> > Tim > >> > > >> > > >> >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Why would that work ? What would you expect the output to be ? > >> >> > >> >> Try: > >> >> > >> >> #(1 2 3) asDictionary > >> >> > >> >> it fails in exactly the same way. You need key/value pairs > (Associations). > >> >> > >> >> These do work > >> >> > >> >> Bag new add: #foo->100; asDictionary. > >> >> > >> >> Bag new addAll: 'ABABABAAAA'; valuesAndCounts. > >> >> > >> >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> I was surprised to find that a Bag canât convert to a dictionary - > e.g. > >> >>> > >> >>> Bag new > >> >>> addAll: 'aabbbbcdddâ; > >> >>> asDictionary > >> >>> > >> >>> Gives an error - Dnu #key > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> It looks to me like Bag is inheriting a bad version of > #associationsDo: and instead could simply forward it to #doWithOccurences: > instead? > >> >>> > >> >>> I know Bag is not used that much - but it comes up a lot in > programming exercises. > >> >>> > >> >>> Tim > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >

March 7, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Why can't a Bag answer as a dictionary?

by Richard O'Keefe

To me, a bag is first and foremost a multiset. Yes, it's a collection, but it's not *just* a collection. It's a very specific kind of collection with a very salient "characteristic function". In my own Smalltalk library, #asDictionary isn't even *defined* on things that are not dictionaries or some kind of mapping, because let's face it, a dictionary *isn't* a collection of Associations, and trying to make it look like one made Smalltalk-80 rather inconsistent. For example, if a dictionary were a collection of associations, you would expect (Dictionary with: #a -> 1 with: #b -> 2) includes: #a -> 1 to be true. No, it's false. You would expect (Dictionary with: #a -> 1 with: #b -> 2) asArray to be (a->1 b->2). No, it's (1 2). In order to avoid major confusion, I had to learn never to think of Associations in connection with Dictionaries. So I expect #asDictionary to have something to do with #keysAndValuesDo:. or something like that. For {1->2. 3->4} asDictionary I would have to write Dictionary withAllAssociations: {1->2. 3->4} except that I never actually found a use for it. #valuesAndCounts is a method that violates good OO practice, because it exposes (what you'd expect to be) private state. For example, b := 'abracadabra' asBag. b valuesAndCounts at: $a put: 'BOOM!'. b select, Print It, BOOM!. It should *copy* the dictionary. On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 04:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > I was just explaining how it is now, what I think the rationale is behind > it. > > I understand #asDictionary as working on a collection of > pairs/associations (because it basically goes to #withAll:). > > A bag is just a collection that is optimised for many duplicates, the fact > that you have values and counts is more an implementation detail than an > intrinsic property. > > The conversion that you want, and that already exists in #valuesAndCounts > is one interpretation of what a bag is, not the only one. A bag is foremost > a collection of things. > > I am not immediately convinced that #valuesAndCounts should be the default > #asDictionary interpretation. > > What about the inverse for example ? > > { #foo->2. #bar->3 } asDictionary asBag. > > But this is certainly an interesting discussion. > > > On 6 Mar 2019, at 16:23, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > > > As Richard said - as a bag is relationship between keys and frequencies, > I would expect it to be able to convert to a dictionary. > > > > It displays in an inspector just like a Dictionary - which is why I > figured I could convert to pass it back to the exercise that was written > with Dictionaries in mind. > > > > <PastedGraphic-3.png> > > > > > > The code to fix it is quite simple, but on these kinds of things - I > thought it worth checking before submitting a PR. > > > > Tim > > > > > >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> > >> Why would that work ? What would you expect the output to be ? > >> > >> Try: > >> > >> #(1 2 3) asDictionary > >> > >> it fails in exactly the same way. You need key/value pairs > (Associations). > >> > >> These do work > >> > >> Bag new add: #foo->100; asDictionary. > >> > >> Bag new addAll: 'ABABABAAAA'; valuesAndCounts. > >> > >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >>> > >>> I was surprised to find that a Bag canât convert to a dictionary - e.g. > >>> > >>> Bag new > >>> addAll: 'aabbbbcdddâ; > >>> asDictionary > >>> > >>> Gives an error - Dnu #key > >>> > >>> > >>> It looks to me like Bag is inheriting a bad version of > #associationsDo: and instead could simply forward it to #doWithOccurences: > instead? > >>> > >>> I know Bag is not used that much - but it comes up a lot in > programming exercises. > >>> > >>> Tim > >> > >> > > > > >

March 7, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How exactly is "share repositories between images" supposed to work without tripping each other up?

by Ben Coman

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 02:16, Esteban Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I couldn't find a "simple enough" solution to deal with that, so I > moved to emulated Linux [1]. > > I don't know if the long file path is a limitation of Windows itself or > libgit2. > Its a combination, but for our purposes the limitation lies with libgit2. Issue open since April 2015... "Support `core.longpaths` on Windows " https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/issues/3053#issuecomment-324363336 cheers -ben

March 6, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How exactly is "share repositories between images" supposed to work without tripping each other up?

by Dale Henrichs

On 3/6/19 8:18 AM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Tim Mackinnon wrote >> how is this shared repository supposed to work? > While I initially liked the space efficiency of the shared approach, I > eventually gave up because it created too many (often obscure) problems. It > just doesn't seem to be a good match for git, although you can get away with > it in the simplest cases (read-only, no branch switching). The use case that I have used for years (tODE and GemStone) is that I am sharing 60+ git repositories amongst 60+ images and I want all of the images to be sharing the same versions of all of the git projects. When I want to do private work I create a clone that is local to the image that I'm working in and do my work on a topic branch ... when I'm done with the private work, I merge the topic branch back into my commonly shared branch and then update the shared git repository so that when I do activate one of the images. I can quickly tell (via tools) that i have not loaded the latest shared code into my image ... if I care (like preparing to do development), I update to the latest shared code, so that my changes can be shared... if I don't care, then I remember not to make any code changes that I want to keep:) The images that I am using are a mix different versions of GemStone, so I _do_ make it a practice to ensure that projects I work with are all loadable in the different versions of GemStone that I care about via baseline changes (I use packages for version-specific code and avoid putting version-specific code on different branches or tags) ... So, when you say it's not "a good match for git", I don't think that it is "git" that is the problem, but the use cases themselves are the culprit... different tool features are very likely needed to support different use cases ... Dale

March 6, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Why can't a Bag answer as a dictionary?

by Richard Sargent

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:25 AM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > I still am tempted to make asDictionary work - because the the moment you > get a #key , DNU error - which is definitely not right. > This argument gives me the willies. Sorry. I can see an argument that a sequenceable collection can implement a meaningful #asDictionary, using #keysAndValuesDo:. The key is the index of each element, so it makes sense. But, #asDictionary for a non-sequenceable collection doesn't make sense (other than for Dictionary and its variants, obviously). What would the keys be from a Set, for example? Bag>>#asDictionary makes sense if (and in my opinion, only if) you define it to rely on the internal implementation. #valuesAndCounts make sense because it doesn't rely on internal implementation details to define it, although it typically is implemented to use those internal implementation details. I think expressing it as a conversion is a poor choice. Asking it for a different representation is good. [And as an aside, given that the API expresses #occurrencesOf:, #valuesAndCounts might have been better named #valuesAndOccurrences (and perhaps "With" rather than "And").] > So should Bag asDictionary give you a reasonable dictionary, or should it > throw a proper exception - something like: > > DomainError signal: â#asDictionary not supported, use #valueAndCountsâ > > Is that better - or do we accept that it inherits it from Collection and > so can do something useful? > > Tim > > On 6 Mar 2019, at 18:11, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > And when asking the object: > > #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag isDictionary > > we get false. So, not, not a dictionary. > > I still have been using #valuesAndCounts to get the dictionary out of a > bag on several occasions. > > And is useful indeed. > > #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag occurrencesOf: 2 > > and > > #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag valuesAndCounts at: 2 > > seem pretty much the same. > > But in this age of streams/reactive streams and lazy evaluations, what do > we have in Pharo on that front? > > Phil > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> I was just explaining how it is now, what I think the rationale is behind >> it. >> >> I understand #asDictionary as working on a collection of >> pairs/associations (because it basically goes to #withAll:). >> >> A bag is just a collection that is optimised for many duplicates, the >> fact that you have values and counts is more an implementation detail than >> an intrinsic property. >> >> The conversion that you want, and that already exists in #valuesAndCounts >> is one interpretation of what a bag is, not the only one. A bag is foremost >> a collection of things. >> >> I am not immediately convinced that #valuesAndCounts should be the >> default #asDictionary interpretation. >> >> What about the inverse for example ? >> >> { #foo->2. #bar->3 } asDictionary asBag. >> >> But this is certainly an interesting discussion. >> >> > On 6 Mar 2019, at 16:23, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> > >> > As Richard said - as a bag is relationship between keys and >> frequencies, I would expect it to be able to convert to a dictionary. >> > >> > It displays in an inspector just like a Dictionary - which is why I >> figured I could convert to pass it back to the exercise that was written >> with Dictionaries in mind. >> > >> > <PastedGraphic-3.png> >> > >> > >> > The code to fix it is quite simple, but on these kinds of things - I >> thought it worth checking before submitting a PR. >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > >> >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> >> >> Why would that work ? What would you expect the output to be ? >> >> >> >> Try: >> >> >> >> #(1 2 3) asDictionary >> >> >> >> it fails in exactly the same way. You need key/value pairs >> (Associations). >> >> >> >> These do work >> >> >> >> Bag new add: #foo->100; asDictionary. >> >> >> >> Bag new addAll: 'ABABABAAAA'; valuesAndCounts. >> >> >> >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I was surprised to find that a Bag canât convert to a dictionary - >> e.g. >> >>> >> >>> Bag new >> >>> addAll: 'aabbbbcdddâ; >> >>> asDictionary >> >>> >> >>> Gives an error - Dnu #key >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> It looks to me like Bag is inheriting a bad version of >> #associationsDo: and instead could simply forward it to #doWithOccurences: >> instead? >> >>> >> >>> I know Bag is not used that much - but it comes up a lot in >> programming exercises. >> >>> >> >>> Tim >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >

March 6, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Why can't a Bag answer as a dictionary?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

I am still not convinced. > On 6 Mar 2019, at 19:24, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > I still am tempted to make asDictionary work - because the the moment you get a #key , DNU error - which is definitely not right. The error might not be super clear, but it is not wrong, the elements of your collection do not respond to #key, a necessity to create a dictionary from a collection of associations/pairs. Also, if you modify #asDictionary like that, then <some bag> as: #Dictionary will still fail. This is all not so simple as it seems. > So should Bag asDictionary give you a reasonable dictionary, or should it throw a proper exception - something like: > > DomainError signal: â#asDictionary not supported, use #valueAndCountsâ > > Is that better - or do we accept that it inherits it from Collection and so can do something useful? > > Tim > >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 18:11, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: >> >> And when asking the object: >> >> #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag isDictionary >> >> we get false. So, not, not a dictionary. >> >> I still have been using #valuesAndCounts to get the dictionary out of a bag on several occasions. >> >> And is useful indeed. >> >> #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag occurrencesOf: 2 >> >> and >> >> #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag valuesAndCounts at: 2 >> >> seem pretty much the same. >> >> But in this age of streams/reactive streams and lazy evaluations, what do we have in Pharo on that front? >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> I was just explaining how it is now, what I think the rationale is behind it. >> >> I understand #asDictionary as working on a collection of pairs/associations (because it basically goes to #withAll:). >> >> A bag is just a collection that is optimised for many duplicates, the fact that you have values and counts is more an implementation detail than an intrinsic property. >> >> The conversion that you want, and that already exists in #valuesAndCounts is one interpretation of what a bag is, not the only one. A bag is foremost a collection of things. >> >> I am not immediately convinced that #valuesAndCounts should be the default #asDictionary interpretation. >> >> What about the inverse for example ? >> >> { #foo->2. #bar->3 } asDictionary asBag. >> >> But this is certainly an interesting discussion. >> >> > On 6 Mar 2019, at 16:23, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> > >> > As Richard said - as a bag is relationship between keys and frequencies, I would expect it to be able to convert to a dictionary. >> > >> > It displays in an inspector just like a Dictionary - which is why I figured I could convert to pass it back to the exercise that was written with Dictionaries in mind. >> > >> > <PastedGraphic-3.png> >> > >> > >> > The code to fix it is quite simple, but on these kinds of things - I thought it worth checking before submitting a PR. >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > >> >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> >> >> Why would that work ? What would you expect the output to be ? >> >> >> >> Try: >> >> >> >> #(1 2 3) asDictionary >> >> >> >> it fails in exactly the same way. You need key/value pairs (Associations). >> >> >> >> These do work >> >> >> >> Bag new add: #foo->100; asDictionary. >> >> >> >> Bag new addAll: 'ABABABAAAA'; valuesAndCounts. >> >> >> >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I was surprised to find that a Bag canât convert to a dictionary - e.g. >> >>> >> >>> Bag new >> >>> addAll: 'aabbbbcdddâ; >> >>> asDictionary >> >>> >> >>> Gives an error - Dnu #key >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> It looks to me like Bag is inheriting a bad version of #associationsDo: and instead could simply forward it to #doWithOccurences: instead? >> >>> >> >>> I know Bag is not used that much - but it comes up a lot in programming exercises. >> >>> >> >>> Tim >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >

March 6, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Why can't a Bag answer as a dictionary?

by Tim Mackinnon

I still am tempted to make asDictionary work - because the the moment you get a #key , DNU error - which is definitely not right. So should Bag asDictionary give you a reasonable dictionary, or should it throw a proper exception - something like: DomainError signal: â#asDictionary not supported, use #valueAndCountsâ Is that better - or do we accept that it inherits it from Collection and so can do something useful? Tim > On 6 Mar 2019, at 18:11, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > And when asking the object: > > #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag isDictionary > > we get false. So, not, not a dictionary. > > I still have been using #valuesAndCounts to get the dictionary out of a bag on several occasions. > > And is useful indeed. > > #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag occurrencesOf: 2 > > and > > #(1 2 4 5 6 7 2 1 4 3) asBag valuesAndCounts at: 2 > > seem pretty much the same. > > But in this age of streams/reactive streams and lazy evaluations, what do we have in Pharo on that front? > > Phil > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote: > I was just explaining how it is now, what I think the rationale is behind it. > > I understand #asDictionary as working on a collection of pairs/associations (because it basically goes to #withAll:). > > A bag is just a collection that is optimised for many duplicates, the fact that you have values and counts is more an implementation detail than an intrinsic property. > > The conversion that you want, and that already exists in #valuesAndCounts is one interpretation of what a bag is, not the only one. A bag is foremost a collection of things. > > I am not immediately convinced that #valuesAndCounts should be the default #asDictionary interpretation. > > What about the inverse for example ? > > { #foo->2. #bar->3 } asDictionary asBag. > > But this is certainly an interesting discussion. > > > On 6 Mar 2019, at 16:23, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > > > As Richard said - as a bag is relationship between keys and frequencies, I would expect it to be able to convert to a dictionary. > > > > It displays in an inspector just like a Dictionary - which is why I figured I could convert to pass it back to the exercise that was written with Dictionaries in mind. > > > > <PastedGraphic-3.png> > > > > > > The code to fix it is quite simple, but on these kinds of things - I thought it worth checking before submitting a PR. > > > > Tim > > > > > >> On 6 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote: > >> > >> Why would that work ? What would you expect the output to be ? > >> > >> Try: > >> > >> #(1 2 3) asDictionary > >> > >> it fails in exactly the same way. You need key/value pairs (Associations). > >> > >> These do work > >> > >> Bag new add: #foo->100; asDictionary. > >> > >> Bag new addAll: 'ABABABAAAA'; valuesAndCounts. > >> > >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:25, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >>> > >>> I was surprised to find that a Bag canât convert to a dictionary - e.g. > >>> > >>> Bag new > >>> addAll: 'aabbbbcdddâ; > >>> asDictionary > >>> > >>> Gives an error - Dnu #key > >>> > >>> > >>> It looks to me like Bag is inheriting a bad version of #associationsDo: and instead could simply forward it to #doWithOccurences: instead? > >>> > >>> I know Bag is not used that much - but it comes up a lot in programming exercises. > >>> > >>> Tim > >> > >> > > > > >

March 6, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How exactly is "share repositories between images" supposed to work without tripping each other up?

by Esteban Maringolo

I couldn't find a "simple enough" solution to deal with that, so I moved to emulated Linux [1]. I don't know if the long file path is a limitation of Windows itself or libgit2. Because if it's the former, then I'll try this setting in Windows 10 and let you know if it works: https://www.howtogeek.com/266621/how-to-make-windows-10-accept-file-paths-o… Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo El miÃ©., 6 mar. 2019 a las 13:19, Sean P. DeNigris (<sean(a)clipperadams.com>) escribiÃ³: > > Tim Mackinnon wrote > > how is this shared repository supposed to work? > > While I initially liked the space efficiency of the shared approach, I > eventually gave up because it created too many (often obscure) problems. It > just doesn't seem to be a good match for git, although you can get away with > it in the simplest cases (read-only, no branch switching). It sounds like > you may not have the luxury of avoiding it so hopefully someone can provide > more constructive help. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >

March 6, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] How exactly is "share repositories between images" supposed to work without tripping each other up?

by phil＠highoctane.be

And then the Pharo launcher folder suddenly appears as a 20GB folder... Same league as a Maven .m2, albeit with a messier structure, full of copies all over the place. Is Cargo going to help us there? Phil On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 5:18 PM Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Tim Mackinnon wrote > > how is this shared repository supposed to work? > > While I initially liked the space efficiency of the shared approach, I > eventually gave up because it created too many (often obscure) problems. It > just doesn't seem to be a good match for git, although you can get away > with > it in the simplest cases (read-only, no branch switching). It sounds like > you may not have the luxury of avoiding it so hopefully someone can provide > more constructive help. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > > >

March 6, 2019