> On 8 Oct 2017, at 01:40, Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > I see the answer is due to STON - fine I'll live with it. > > I think we missed a chance to superficially look like more conventional > languages on the web in GitHub but that ship had sailed and maybe it's not > such a bad thing.
I think tonel does a fair job in keeping “Pharo flavour” and not looking completely alien to newcomers/non-pharoers. the method detail is just that, a detail. And even looking for readability, we still need to keep what we are, I think :) > I'll happily take just been able to efficiently use GitHub asap any day. well, that’s what I’m working on :) Esteban > > So please keep rolling forward. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 7 Oct 2017, at 09:08, Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Tim >> >> we talk about this format of methods year ago and we will like it and >> we will not discuss it anymore. >> For the record a method is a named block so it fits and we do not have >> to have {} for method delimiters. >> >> Stef >> >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Gosh - It actually work quite well to be able to easily browse code online >>> in a more traditional format of seeing an entire class. Hopefully this leads >>> to us being able to share solutions to common language agnostic problems. >>> >>> One small observation - I quickly grok’d the use of class { …. } (with the >>> curly braces) - but given that smalltalk methods often have lots of [ ] >>> (square braces in them), I was a bit surprised to see that method >>> declarations in tonal don’t use { … } (curly braces) to denote them, but >>> instead use [ ] - which feels slightly strange given the class declaration >>> above has. {}. >>> >>> Was it easier to parse this way, or is there some subtlety I missed? I would >>> have been tempted to use {} for classes and methods and [] for the >>> protocols as this more closely matches what other languages do - and it >>> might actually make it more easily readable for other programmers. Given we >>> have to learn this new format anyway - I’d be prepared to give a nod to what >>> others do… >>> >>> Possibly this observation comes to late - and maybe there is compelling >>> reason to go the route we have gone - but maybe its worth a quick double >>> check as its an exciting development. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On 6 Oct 2017, at 18:18, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I released Iceberg version 0.6. It includes a lot of small tweaks and fixes, >>> but the most important inclusion is tonel file format which aims to replace >>> file tree. >>> >>> What is Tonel? (https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel) >>> Tonel is a file-per-class file format for monticello repositories. It’s >>> purpose is to reduce the amount of files touched each operation, make the IO >>> faster an compact the repositories database. >>> It has also as an objective to offer an “easy-to-read” format, so people >>> wanting to understand a chunk of code will recognise it easily. >>> For testing, I migrated several of my projects to Tonel and I’ve been using >>> it, you can see some as examples: >>> >>> https://github.com/estebanlm/MUDClient >>> https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-tonel (this was just an example and it >>> has some minimal errors already fixed) >>> >>> We plan to migrate Pharo development to tonel to address some problems we >>> have: >>> >>> - since it has to read/write a lot of files, IO operations are slow >>> - and even much more slow in Windows >>> - Windows also has a problem with longpaths. >>> >>> Iceberg 0.6 will be integrated to Pharo7 soon :) >>> To update Pharo 6.1, there are instructions in the readme: >>> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/blob/master/README.md >>> now, if you wan to migrate your projects to Tonel (from FileTree), here is a >>> script you can use: >>> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel/blob/master/MigrateFromFileTree.md >>> >>> btw, tonel is independent of Iceberg and can be used with plain Monticello >>> (but it is a metadaless format, history will reside on git, not on >>> monticello). >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >>> >>> >> > >
