On May 17, 2009, at 22:56 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> adrian
> may be we should add argumentCount to BlockClosure too.

Yes, probably.
Adrian

>
>
> Stef
>
> On May 17, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
>
>> Hi Mariano
>>
>> BlockContext implemented #argumentCount (just delegating to #numArgs)
>> but BlockClosure does not.
>>
>> You can change the sender in GLORP to #numArgs or implement
>> BlockClosure>>#argumentCount
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Adrian
>>
>> On May 17, 2009, at 22:06 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I noticed that #argumentCount is missing in the class BlockClosure.
>>>> #argumentCount is part of ANSI and Seaside depends on it (for now  
>>>> it
>>>> is part of Seaside-Closures).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am trying to make GLORP work with Pharo and I get the same error:
>>>
>>> BlockClosure(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #argumentCount
>>>
>>> Actually, this is in Dialect #argumentCountFor: aBlock
>>>
>>> Do you know how should I fix this ?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Mariano
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore the following messages are missing #valueWithExit,
>>>> #valueSuppressingAllMessages, #valueWithEnoughArguments: on
>>>> BlockClosure, I guess these are used at various places within  
>>>> Pharo.
>>>>
>>>> All the mentioned methods can be copied verbatim from BlockContext.
>>>>
>>>> Lukas
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> lukas do you want that we produce a backward compatibility layer
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> that old seaside code loads in pharo?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I probably misunderstood your previous mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> After loading Seaside with the script above load:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Seaside-Closures-lr.1 from the Seaside 2.9 repository
>>>>>
>>>>> - DynamicBindings-damiencassou.9
>>>>> - KomHttpServer-damiencassou.47 from the Kom repository
>>>>>
>>>>> And then you should have a Seaside with closures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that two tests for partial continuations fail, because they
>>>>> assume the old Squeak block behavior. Ignore them, these tests are
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Lukas Renggli
>>>>> http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lukas Renggli
>>>> http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to