Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Stephan Can you stop ranting for ranting and be positive thinking? Don't you think that are ARE PAYING ATTENTION!!! We will NOT END UP looking like some other systems! If you want to help here is a concrete proposal (we want to do it but we are busy doing bullshit works like reviewing fix and

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Or are you saying there should be a collection of rewrite rules even after > the method is totally removed so one can bring a very old project up to the > newest APIs? Making sure the code works in each intermediate version of Pharo is

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Esteban A. Maringolo wrote >> That means with a code rewrite rule. Deprecations are not enough. > Why not both? It seems like you're both saying the same thing, no? Isn't this all accomplished via: self deprecated: 'Renamed to #action because now accepts any valuable as

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

2018-02-23 14:50 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont : > Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable. > > It needs to be done in a way that is sustainable. That means with a code > rewrite rule. Deprecations are not enough.

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake of > backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to > fix a couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation. > > Cleanups at the level

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > > On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse < > stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Clement > > > > can you open a bug

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

++999^1000 :) On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Thanks Sven > I thought that suddenly I was an idiot. > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe > wrote: > > > > > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Thanks Sven I thought that suddenly I was an idiot. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse > wrote: > Clement > > can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation? > > > What is the bug? Having two selectors doing

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Clement > > can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation? > > What is the bug? You want to merge the two selectors and break compatibility with frameworks using the removed one? > Stef > > On Mon,

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Clement can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation? Stef On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera wrote: > Hi, > > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed. > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray >

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Ah, sorry, yes #valueWithArguments: does throw errors. Best regards Stefan > On 19 Feb 2018, at 20:17, Stefan Marr wrote: > > Hi Mariano: > >> On 19 Feb 2018, at 20:09, Mariano Martinez Peck >> wrote: >> >> I guess it's because we offer both

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Hi Mariano: > On 19 Feb 2018, at 20:09, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > I guess it's because we offer both flavors. If you see valueWithArguments: > you will see it does throw errors like #value* / #cull* do. Did you try my examples? I don’t think this is correct.

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Stefan Marr wrote: > Hi: > > I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of > BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and BlockClosure>># > valueWithEnoughArguments: > > I am trying to decide which of the two I need

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Hi Clement: Thanks for looking into this! > On 19 Feb 2018, at 11:43, Clément Bera wrote: > > they're both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility > purpose Ok, good to know. Thanks. > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils,

Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Hi, It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed. valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment, they're both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose (One is the

[Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:

Hi: I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments: I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns. The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1