Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-26 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
Phil I can tell you that we will do our best to help you. We deeply want that other people can build successes for Pharo. We could be better and the systsme could be better but we are focused on improving it while at the same time making sure that business can grow. So do not hesitate to let us

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-25 Thread p...@highoctane.be
I am using Pharo business wise. And making money out of it. It is using Seaside 3 and a ton of packages. They all work fine. What's your point really? If you want to go Pharo, you go Pharo and you don't look back. Or you haven't made your mind. In which case the complaints are useless. Phil

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-25 Thread Chris Muller
We should not continue this old discussion. We've already debated this ad naseum. Thank you Pharo guys for exploring what can be done when all constraints are removed! Thank you Squeak guys for advancing in a way that caters to legacy applications. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Levente Uzony

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-25 Thread Levente Uzonyi
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: I'm sorry if you guys didn't get my message, but it was as serious as it could be. Ok fair :) I understand that you don't what to be backwards compatible, because it makes it easier to change stuff. As I see, people need various levels of back

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-25 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
> I'm sorry if you guys didn't get my message, but it was as serious as it > could be. Ok fair :) > I understand that you don't what to be backwards compatible, because it makes > it easier to change stuff. > As I see, people need various levels of backwards compatibility. Indeed but the righ

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-25 Thread Levente Uzonyi
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" Levente I hope that writing this little pun created some jubilation to you. Or I do not understand your point. But this is ok for me. If pun on Pharo helps you then this is ok and they m

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-25 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
> > It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" > Levente I hope that writing this little pun created some jubilation to you. Or I do not understand your point. But this is ok for me. If pun on Pharo helps you then this is ok and they make me smile, and I'm serious If I can la

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:32, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> see my long explanation here >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >>> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Marcus Denker
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:32, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> see my long explanation here >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >>> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Levente Uzonyi
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing assertion. This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn'

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Igor Stasenko
On 24 October 2013 15:40, Philippe Marschall < philippe.marsch...@netcetera.ch> wrote: > On 24.10.13 15:24, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote:

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Philippe Marschall
On 24.10.13 15:24, Igor Stasenko wrote: On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall mailto:philippe.marsch...@netcetera.ch>> wrote: On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/__default.asp?11876#87218

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Igor Stasenko
On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall < philippe.marsch...@netcetera.ch> wrote: > On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: > >> see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/** >> default.asp?11876#87218 >> it looks unsuspicous unti

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-24 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
While I agree that we shouldn’t unnecessary make life more difficult for external frameworks/libraries when that can be avoided, we do have to reserve the right to be able to make changes that break things. Like with #includesSubstring: the actual intention of the change is valid and sound, but

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-23 Thread Philippe Marschall
On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing assertion. This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more flexible, adaptable,

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-22 Thread Igor Stasenko
On 22 October 2013 10:02, Camillo Bruni wrote: > On 2013-10-22, at 09:46, Johan Brichau wrote: > > In Seaside, there are a couple of tests that now fail because of this > change. > > > > Although I agree it's good practice to use specific error classes in > such assertions, the tests that are fa

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-22 Thread Camillo Bruni
On 2013-10-22, at 09:46, Johan Brichau wrote: > In Seaside, there are a couple of tests that now fail because of this change. > > Although I agree it's good practice to use specific error classes in such > assertions, the tests that are failing in Seaside use the Error class because > they are

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-22 Thread Johan Brichau
In Seaside, there are a couple of tests that now fail because of this change. Although I agree it's good practice to use specific error classes in such assertions, the tests that are failing in Seaside use the Error class because they are written to be cross-platform. Different subclasses of Err

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-21 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
I will add a discussion to the SUnit Chapter about this point. Stef On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote: > see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 > it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing > assertion. > > On

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-21 Thread Camillo Bruni
On 2013-10-22, at 00:20, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Instead of using shouldnt:raise:, you can simply remove the assertion, as in: > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > testNoErrorWhenDrawing > self shouldnt: [ view raw drawOn: tracingCanvas ] raise: Error > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > || > V > > -=-=-=-=-

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-21 Thread Alexandre Bergel
Instead of using shouldnt:raise:, you can simply remove the assertion, as in: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= testNoErrorWhenDrawing self shouldnt: [ view raw drawOn: tracingCanvas ] raise: Error -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= || V -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= testNoErrorWhenDrawing view raw drawOn: tracingCanvas

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-21 Thread Camillo Bruni
see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing assertion. On 2013-10-21, at 23:42, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Hi! > > Just to share some thought. > I am now playing with Pharo 3. I have seen

[Pharo-dev] Use #shouldnt:raise: only with specific errors, or evaluate the given expression directly

2013-10-21 Thread Alexandre Bergel
Hi! Just to share some thought. I am now playing with Pharo 3. I have seen TestCase has some additional checks for assertion with exception. I perfectly understand the idea behind this, however, on the other hand, I see nothing suspect with the following assertion (which Roassal's tests are ful