Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-25 Thread Nicolai Hess
2016-02-25 15:25 GMT+01:00 Clément Bera : > > > 2016-02-23 18:03 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda : > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:47 AM, stepharo wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I saw that something or >>> I do not know why but I have

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-25 Thread Clément Bera
2016-02-23 18:03 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda : > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:47 AM, stepharo wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I saw that something or >> I do not know why but I have the impression that is >> better. >> Because we may have code not present and

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-25 Thread Clément Bera
lt; > pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> > >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or Point> > >> Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT+1 > >> To: Pharo Development

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-25 Thread Aliaksei Syrel
There is also to indicate explicitly that user must check for nil. There are only a few methods in element (#owner and some collection related methods like "find element such that") that may return nil. Ideally syntax checker should take into account that method can return nil and indicate it

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Eliot Miranda
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:47 AM, stepharo wrote: > Hi > > I saw that something or > I do not know why but I have the impression that is > better. > Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code. > Given the current semantics of pragmas only is

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Ben Coman
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:17 PM, stepharo wrote: > I do not think that Pharo will become a static language :) > For the moment we can let it as a documentation. > Now I would prefer to have tests because such annotations may be obsolete. Maybe not if those pragmas become

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Esteban Lorenzano
l.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >>>> <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> >>>&g

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
<pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> >>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or >> Point> >>> Date: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1 >>> To: Pharo Development L

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Tudor Girba
Hi, > On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >> <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >> >> >> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@ya

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Tudor Girba
you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >>> <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com>

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Esteban Lorenzano
> On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:20, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev > <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: > > > From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or > Date: 23 February 2016 at 13:19:34 GMT+1 > To: Pharo Develop

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread stepharo
not hurt at the moment. What do you think? Cheers, Doru On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or Date: February 23, 2016 at 10:23:33 AM GMT

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread stepharo
Ok so I will use # Stef Le 23/2/16 11:09, Nicolai Hess a écrit : Old compiler does not allowed only And I think opal should behave the same (not fixed yet) 2016-02-23 11:01 GMT+01:00 Peter Uhnák >: >Because we may have code not present

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread stepharo
Pablo Tesone Phd was on type inferencing but he accepted another PhD topics with Noury and us. Le 23/2/16 10:43, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used? Alexandre On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Ben Coman
t; > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev >> <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >> >> >> From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or &

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Peter Uhnák
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Henrik Johansen < henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no> wrote: > Sounds like a recipe for creating documentation that gets out of > sync quickly/has bugs of its own, if you ask me... > For instance, in the example, it seems weird multiplicity: (1 '*') when > the method

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Henrik Johansen
Sounds like a recipe for creating documentation that gets out of sync quickly/has bugs of its own, if you ask me... For instance, in the example, it seems weird multiplicity: (1 '*') when the method returns an empty collection if contact is nil (multiplicity 0) Cheers, Henry > On 23 Feb 2016,

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:43, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > > Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How > these annotations are then used? Apparently just for documentation Still this is a dangerous 'precedent' as it might give the wrong

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Nicolai Hess
Old compiler does not allowed only And I think opal should behave the same (not fixed yet) 2016-02-23 11:01 GMT+01:00 Peter Uhnák : > > Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code. > > I think it's just visual, because it's still referenced as

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Peter Uhnák
> Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code. I think it's just visual, because it's still referenced as string in the pragma itself. For example Person>>contact ^ contact ifNil: [ contact := OrderedCollection new ] But, (Person>>#contact) pragmas first arguments

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Alexandre Bergel
Just emerging from holidays. Is there an effort to have type annotations? How these annotations are then used? Alexandre > On Feb 23, 2016, at 5:47 AM, stepharo wrote: > > Hi > > I saw that something or > I do not know why but I have the impression that is better. >

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Tudor Girba
support. And it does not hurt at the moment. What do you think? Cheers, Doru > On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev > <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote: > > > From: Alain Plantec <alain.plan...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev
--- Begin Message --- I don’t like it too. Alain > Le 23 févr. 2016 à 09:50, Nicolai Hess a écrit : > > > > 2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo >: > Hi > > I saw that something or > I do not know why but I have the

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread Nicolai Hess
2016-02-23 9:47 GMT+01:00 stepharo : > Hi > > I saw that something or > I do not know why but I have the impression that is > better. > Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code. > I would like to know for what this is used. I don't like it. > >

[Pharo-dev] [Bloc] Do we want or

2016-02-23 Thread stepharo
Hi I saw that something or I do not know why but I have the impression that is better. Because we may have code not present and still want to load the code. Stef