Ben it would be good to do it pier format so that we get html and pdf and also to avoid to have documentation spread all over.
Stef On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:42 PM, Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes it is planned :) > > The idea is to have it ready for the release of Pharo 3.0 (at last). > There is a git repo I just opened[1] where the doc will be :) > > Every body is free to fork it and to pull-request me :) > > Ben > [1]https://github.com/BenjaminVanRyseghem/Spec_Documentation > > On 12 Nov 2013, at 23:09, kilon alios <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there any new documentation planned ? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Benjamin >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Confirmed and fixed :P >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12153 >> >> >> Ben >> >> On 12 Nov 2013, at 17:08, Martin Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> (Checked in Pharo 30567) >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Martin Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Thanks Ben. It's neat to have Spec models for tree columns. It was >>>> strange to instantiate MorphTreeColumnMorph directly from my Spec >>>> model. >>>> >>>> I found an issue in TreeModel: Only one level of children is shown. >>>> Reproduce with: >>>> >>>> TreeModel new >>>> roots: (1 to: 5); >>>> childrenBlock: [ :item | 1+item to: 5+item ]; >>>> openWithSpec >>>> >>>> Should I report? >>>> >>>> Martín >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> It’s this one: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12135 >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:49, Martin Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I forgot to specify: in latest Pharo (30565) >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Martin Dias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think there is some issue with TreeColumnModel. For example: >>>>> >>>>> TreeModel exampleWithCustomColumnsAndNodes >>>>> >>>>> Raises "ByteSymbol(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #adapt:" >>>>> >>>>> Should I report in fogbugz? >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Martín >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Stéphane Ducasse >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes this is what I did for the change sorter. I do not like this DSL like >>>>> way of passing block over block over block >>>>> over blocks. >>>>> >>>>> I love blocks but methods are named blocks and I prefer them. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> biut that method can be written: >>>>> >>>>> aMenu addGroup: (MenuGroupModel new >>>>> addItem: (MenuItemModel new >>>>> name: 'Browse Full'; >>>>> action: [ self browseSelectedObject ]; >>>>> shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix); >>>>> addItem: (MenuItem new >>>>> name: 'Browse Class'; >>>>> action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ])). >>>>> >>>>> and you do not have to declare variables for that (and is a lot better >>>>> than >>>>> using a block, IMO). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Benjamin >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One can just use an object too. >>>>> >>>>> It’s just that otherwise, it pollutes a bit the method with tons of inst >>>>> vars >>>>> (and then you forget to use them :P) >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> On 12 Nov 2013, at 13:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Benjamin >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is not necessary better, but it saves you from having hundreds of temp >>>>> vars :) >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> On 12 Nov 2013, at 01:49, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Example: >>>>> aMenu addGroup: [ :aGroup | >>>>> aGroup addItem: [ :anItem | >>>>> anItem name: 'Browse Full'; >>>>> action: [ self browseSelectedObject ]; >>>>> shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix ]. >>>>> aGroup addItem: [ :anItem | >>>>> anItem name: 'Browse Class'; >>>>> action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ] ] ]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do not see the value of passing block to add element to groups >>>>> why not the normal way i.e. passing an object. I do not get why executing >>>>> a block with an object is better? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> he, I thought the same :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >
