[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #100: 2688-Remove-GLMExamplesBrowser-and-GLMExamples
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #100 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2702 was integrated: "2688-Remove-GLMExamplesBrowser-and-GLMExamples" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2702 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2688 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/100/
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
Many system classes contain lots of methods that are confusing, duplicates of similar functionality, bogus, old, unused, untested and undocumented . This makes the system more complex, especially for newcomers, but also for everyone else trying to make changes. This is often technical debt, cleanup that has been postponed. It is important that knowledgeable developers try to clean up by simplifying things. If not, the situation will never improve. Of course we have to be careful, in this particular case I was. We have done many hundreds of these removals in the past years, with very little problems. We have also done way more dangerous things, like change signatures and semantics of existing methods. In my opinion we can safely go ahead and remove this. A couple of others concurred. If someone wants to go through the trouble to do this with deprecation and a rewrite rule, fine. Sure, the responses "Trying to be *somewhat* compatible and verifying (even quickly) that it's not breaking a gazillion things is the very least someone can do... Backward compatibility is NOT a sin! ;):" and "Check the selectors used in the latest packages on squeaksource, ss3, smalltalkhub and decide." are pure technical, intellectual arguments and not passive-aggressive criticism. Right. > On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:54, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-dev > wrote: > > > From: Benoit St-Jean > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: > Date: 22 February 2019 at 19:54:55 GMT+1 > To: Pharo Development List > > > Trying to be *somewhat* compatible and verifying (even quickly) that it's not > breaking a gazillion things is the very least someone can do... Backward > compatibility is NOT a sin! ;) > > On 2019-02-22 13:45, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> >>> On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:39, Stephan Eggermont wrote: >>> >>> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> . So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: What say thou ? >>> Check the selectors used in the latest packages on squeaksource, ss3, >>> smalltalkhub and decide. >>> >>> Stephan >> You forgot GitHub and all private company repositories in the world. >> >> > -- > - > Benoît St-Jean > Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean > Twitter: @BenLeChialeux > Pinterest: benoitstjean > Instagram: Chef_Benito > IRC: lamneth > Blogue: endormitoire.wordpress.com > "A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero". (A. Einstein) > > > >
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
--- Begin Message --- Trying to be *somewhat* compatible and verifying (even quickly) that it's not breaking a gazillion things is the very least someone can do... Backward compatibility is NOT a sin! ;) On 2019-02-22 13:45, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:39, Stephan Eggermont wrote: Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: . So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: What say thou ? Check the selectors used in the latest packages on squeaksource, ss3, smalltalkhub and decide. Stephan You forgot GitHub and all private company repositories in the world. -- - Benoît St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Twitter: @BenLeChialeux Pinterest: benoitstjean Instagram: Chef_Benito IRC: lamneth Blogue: endormitoire.wordpress.com "A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero". (A. Einstein) --- End Message ---
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
> Am 22.02.2019 um 19:45 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe : > > > >> On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:39, Stephan Eggermont wrote: >> >> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> . >>> >>> So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: >>> >>> What say thou ? >> >> Check the selectors used in the latest packages on squeaksource, ss3, >> smalltalkhub and decide. >> >> Stephan > > You forgot GitHub and all private company repositories in the world. > hehe, indeed. Norbert
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:39, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > > Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > . >> >> So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: >> >> What say thou ? > > Check the selectors used in the latest packages on squeaksource, ss3, > smalltalkhub and decide. > > Stephan You forgot GitHub and all private company repositories in the world.
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: . > > So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: > > What say thou ? Check the selectors used in the latest packages on squeaksource, ss3, smalltalkhub and decide. Stephan
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #99: 2645-Duplication-wrappingPolicyLabel-and-lineNumbersDisplayLabel-is-defined-4-times
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #99 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2662 was integrated: "2645-Duplication-wrappingPolicyLabel-and-lineNumbersDisplayLabel-is-defined-4-times" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2662 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2645 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/99/
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #98: 2680-Cleanup-and-streamline-semantics-of-WriteStream-and-putOn-
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #98 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2698 was integrated: "2680-Cleanup-and-streamline-semantics-of-WriteStream-and-putOn-" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2698 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2680 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/98/
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/2701 > On 22 Feb 2019, at 15:57, Alistair Grant wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 15:50, Esteban Maringolo wrote: >> >> El vie., 22 feb. 2019 a las 11:43, ducasse >> () escribió: >>> + 1 >>> :) >> >>> But I’m an easy person when it is about cleaning. >> >> +1. That makes us two. > > +1 > > Cheers, > Alistair >
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #97: 2677-Add-a-setting-to-disable-the-world-menu
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #97 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2678 was integrated: "2677-Add-a-setting-to-disable-the-world-menu" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2678 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2677 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/97/
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 15:50, Esteban Maringolo wrote: > > El vie., 22 feb. 2019 a las 11:43, ducasse > () escribió: > > + 1 > > :) > > > But I’m an easy person when it is about cleaning. > > +1. That makes us two. +1 Cheers, Alistair
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
El vie., 22 feb. 2019 a las 11:43, ducasse () escribió: > + 1 > :) > But I’m an easy person when it is about cleaning. +1. That makes us two.
Re: [Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
+ 1 :) But I’m an easy person when it is about cleaning. > On 22 Feb 2019, at 15:39, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > Hi, > > Did you know that both Stream and Collection respond to #write: (as an alias > to #<< and #add: respectively) ? I sure did not (and I did quite a bit of > stream hacking). > > This selector is not used for these 2 receiver types in the standard image > (except for one unit test), I never saw it being used in actual code. > > These are just aliases that add nothing but cognitive load. > > They make the API's of two important hierarchies (and especially the > interface for non-inheriting classes) heavier than needed for no functional > benefit. > > So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: > > What say thou ? > > Sven > >
[Pharo-dev] Proposal to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write:
Hi, Did you know that both Stream and Collection respond to #write: (as an alias to #<< and #add: respectively) ? I sure did not (and I did quite a bit of stream hacking). This selector is not used for these 2 receiver types in the standard image (except for one unit test), I never saw it being used in actual code. These are just aliases that add nothing but cognitive load. They make the API's of two important hierarchies (and especially the interface for non-inheriting classes) heavier than needed for no functional benefit. So I propose to remove [Stream|Collection]>>#write: What say thou ? Sven
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #96: Small fix that slightly improves how the removal caption is created…
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #96 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2673 was integrated: "Small fix that slightly improves how the removal caption is created…" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2673 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2567 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/96/
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #95: 1967-critiques-icons-are-not-managed-correctly
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #95 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2655 was integrated: "1967-critiques-icons-are-not-managed-correctly" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2655 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/1967 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/95/
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #94: 2683-Remove-deprecated-pragma-to-use-deprecated-method
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #94 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2686 was integrated: "2683-Remove-deprecated-pragma-to-use-deprecated-method" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2686 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2683 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/94/
[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #93: 2670-Update-the-checkVMVersion-date
There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #93 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2671 was integrated: "2670-Update-the-checkVMVersion-date" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2671 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2670 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/Pharo8.0/93/
