On 29 Jan 2014, at 7:41 , Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
Nicolas Cellier wrote
So maybe PropertyBinding could do it...
Where is the binding? It's purpose is announcing changes. I don't get how
binding epxresses that intent. What am I missing?
No, its purpose is to *hold*
On 30 Jan 2014, at 11:02 , Henrik Johansen henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no wrote:
nor does it *react* to anything in and of itself.
And by that I mean, announcing that something happens, is, by my definition, a
passive role.
The active role, are the subscribers of the announcement, who
On 30 Jan 2014, at 11:02 , Henrik Johansen henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no wrote:
That it also informs those users when said value changes, so they can reflect
any change as they see fit, is, albeit crucial, a secondary feature.
And by that I mean, a ValueHolder would fulfill its main role
I have nothing invested in the new name, but I think the current discussion
is off-track...
Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote
No, its purpose is to *hold* a *value* in a single place
That's the purpose of a regular variable. Nothing is gained storage-wise
Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote
through
On 30 January 2014 14:21, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
I have nothing invested in the new name, but I think the current discussion
is off-track...
Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote
No, its purpose is to *hold* a *value* in a single place
That's the purpose of a regular
2014-01-29 Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com
Nicolai Hess wrote
And I don't like the name either.
I would prefere Binding or ValueBinding.
Guys, I don't love the name either, but can we do a little better than I
don't like it. The purpose of ValueHolder's existence was to notify
2014-01-29 Nicolai Hess nicolaih...@web.de
2014-01-29 Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com
Nicolai Hess wrote
And I don't like the name either.
I would prefere Binding or ValueBinding.
Guys, I don't love the name either, but can we do a little better than I
don't like it. The purpose
Nicolas Cellier wrote
So maybe PropertyBinding could do it...
Where is the binding? It's purpose is announcing changes. I don't get how
binding epxresses that intent. What am I missing?
-
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in context:
2014-01-29 Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com
Nicolas Cellier wrote
So maybe PropertyBinding could do it...
Where is the binding? It's purpose is announcing changes. I don't get how
binding epxresses that intent. What am I missing?
Binding is so generic... The question is what do you
Ben
I still think that it would have been good to discuss the valueHolder changes
in Spec
before doing it. Because it broke the tools of people that used Spec like
martin and clement
as well as the documentation ignaccio wrote. We should be cautious about other
people too.
Stef
On 27 Jan
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Yes, I just tested:
UserManager instVarNamed: 'default' put: nil.
UserManager initialize.
fixes the release tests.
in 30 728
I have to go to bed though ;-)
Thx!
Sven
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:54, Benjamin
I do not know if I publish it somewhere but when I try to make UserManager I
added reset on the class side
to avoid such code.
Stef
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Yes, I just tested:
UserManager instVarNamed: 'default' put: nil.
UserManager
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:47, Pharo4Stef pharo4s...@free.fr wrote:
I do not know if I publish it somewhere but when I try to make UserManager I
added reset on the class side to avoid such code.
Yes that would be better, but it is not in the image as far as I can see...
Stef
On 28 Jan 2014,
On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:53, Pharo4Stef pharo4s...@free.fr wrote:
Ben
I still think that it would have been good to discuss the valueHolder
changes in Spec
before doing it.
This has been discussed for 2-3 days before I made it actually.
Where? because I do not talk about just the
2014-01-28 Pharo4Stef pharo4s...@free.fr
On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:53, Pharo4Stef pharo4s...@free.fr wrote:
Ben
I still think that it would have been good to discuss the valueHolder
changes in Spec
before doing it.
This has been discussed for 2-3 days before I made it actually.
Where?
Nicolai Hess wrote
And I don't like the name either.
I would prefere Binding or ValueBinding.
Guys, I don't love the name either, but can we do a little better than I
don't like it. The purpose of ValueHolder's existence was to notify changes
to its value. A reactive variable, from FRP,
On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Are the compatible ?
Does one have to come before the other ?
Are they both needed ?
I think we should drop
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12717/ReactiveVariable-NewValueHolder
and integrate
OK, I will try and trust you and Sean.
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:13, Benjamin benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Are the compatible ?
Does one have to come before the other ?
Are they both needed ?
I think we should
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:18, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
OK, I will try and trust you and Sean.
Well, it is in 30 726, but there are 2 regressions found:
ReleaseTests.ReleaseTest.testObsoleteClasses
ReleaseTests.ReleaseTest.testUnknownProcesses
on all 3 platforms, these might be
I think the fix https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12711 might need to be
applied again
Ben
On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:33, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:18, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
OK, I will try and trust you and Sean.
Well, it is in
Yes, I just tested:
UserManager instVarNamed: 'default' put: nil.
UserManager initialize.
fixes the release tests.
I have to go to bed though ;-)
Thx!
Sven
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:54, Benjamin benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fix
Thank you for your motivation :)
Ben
On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Yes, I just tested:
UserManager instVarNamed: 'default' put: nil.
UserManager initialize.
fixes the release tests.
I have to go to bed though ;-)
Thx!
Sven
On 28 Jan
22 matches
Mail list logo
