The problem is that some ancestor versions disappeared, what makes it
impossible to merge. We've manually integrated the delta into:

Name: Tests-lr.79
Author: lr
Time: 5 March 2010, 12:16:05 pm
UUID: 99f8b58a-0923-4264-9ea6-58fec6cf4d18
Ancestors: Tests-MichaelRueger.78

- merged Jorges Code

Lukas

On 5 March 2010 11:25, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jorge
>
> could you publish the tests for 1.1 because I could not find my way 11 
> conflicts for 1.1?
>
> Stef
>
>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, too many things today.
>>
>> Ok, I added 17 test to Tests-Compiler which model the cases of
>> shadowing, at least the ones I could come up with. I also modified the
>> Encoder>>bindTemp: in order to make it a little bit more intention
>> revealing.
>>
>> My changes are in:
>>
>>                       Compiler-JorgeRessia.144
>>                       Tests-JorgeRessia.46
>>
>> Some comments:
>>
>> - In order to test the not interactive mode I had to mock the
>> Transcript. I could not find a better solution, if anybody has a
>> better one just let me know I'll change it.
>> - There is a special case which is that when you are NOT in
>> interactive mode if the shadowed variable is a temp then the syntax
>> error is triggered as in interactive mode. This is the behavior
>> implemented before I did the changes. Is that what we want?
>> - I added this test to Tests-Compiler package, I would have preferred
>> to add them to Compiler-Tests but there was nothing there.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Adrian Lienhard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Jorge,
>>>
>>> Just let me know when you think the code is ok for 1.0 or when you have 
>>> something different that I should integrate. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 09:37 , Jorge Ressia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I have the same problem as you. My idea was to make it work as
>>>> before without completely changing it. Basically because I did not
>>>> have the test support to validate my changes.
>>>> Anyhow, what I propose is to write a bunch of tests for every case
>>>> that we know and then if new cases show up add them to the test suite.
>>>> And then play with the code.
>>>>
>>>> I will work on that today, is that ok?
>>>>
>>>> For the explanation of what is going on is that now node can be an
>>>> instance variable node, then the behavior that was there was not
>>>> appropriate in the sense that instance variable nodes do not
>>>> understand #scope.
>>>> However, why this validation "(node isTemp or: [requestor
>>>> interactive])" was there in the first place is not that clear to me,
>>>> but it's been there since 1999.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to build the tests and come up with a better solution.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Jorge
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Adrian Lienhard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Jorge,
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked at the code to integrate in 1.0. And I really have troubles 
>>>>> understanding it (even after drawing a boolean table for the different 
>>>>> combinations of or: ifTrue: and: ifFalse:). Is it correct that the 
>>>>> warning is shown when node isTemp is false and requestor interactive is 
>>>>> true? Is the comment still accurate?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the code:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When non-interactive raise the error only if its a duplicate"
>>>>> (node isTemp or: [requestor interactive])
>>>>>        ifTrue:[ ((node isTemp) and: [node scope <= 0] )
>>>>>                                        ifFalse: [^self notify:'Name is 
>>>>> already defined' ]]
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 3, 2010, at 20:47 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 11243
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Issue 2102: Fix the fact that local temp can shadow silently instance 
>>>>>> var --- fixed
>>>>>>       Problem fixed:
>>>>>> We cannot have twice the same block arg in a method
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       [:each | each ...]
>>>>>>       [:each | each ...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THANKS jorge :)
>>>>>> Do you like good bio beer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>



-- 
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

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

Reply via email to