Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Esteban Lorenzano
sorry, but I still do not understand why this is a problem. can you elaborate why it should not be more implementations? Esteban On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Stephan Eggermont step...@stack.nl wrote: I could copy the separate packages, but not the slice. Please note that the added test

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Mariano Martinez Peck
Because many times you sent class side #packages as part of RPackage framework. But...if you have other class side #packages that answer something different...then you are screw. See my original post: http://forum.world.st/Re-Grease-conflicts-packages-with-RPackage-td4706911.html On Wed, Dec 4,

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Esteban Lorenzano
and why is a problem for us and for grease? On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck marianop...@gmail.com wrote: Because many times you sent class side #packages as part of RPackage framework. But...if you have other class side #packages that answer something different...then

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Mariano Martinez Peck
For us because there are 4 or 5 class side #packages IN PHARO, not grease. On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Esteban Lorenzano esteba...@gmail.comwrote: and why is a problem for us and for grease? On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck marianop...@gmail.com wrote: Because

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Marcus Denker
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:11, Esteban Lorenzano esteba...@gmail.com wrote: and why is a problem for us and for grease? because people want to say MyClass package and get back the RPackage that the class is in... On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck marianop...@gmail.com

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Stephan Eggermont
Esteban wrote: sorry, but I still do not understand why this is a problem. can you elaborate why it should not be more implementations? It breaks the system. You can no longer use senders. So currently, all Moose and Seaside based 3.0 images are somewhat unusable. Stephan

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-04 Thread Esteban Lorenzano
senders of what? I can use senders. On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Stephan Eggermont step...@stack.nl wrote: Esteban wrote: sorry, but I still do not understand why this is a problem. can you elaborate why it should not be more implementations? It breaks the system. You can no longer

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-03 Thread Stephan Eggermont
Mariano wrote: You will only have problems with class side #packages. Are all those 35 class side? 5 out of 35. 4 of which are in Pharo 3 Stephan

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-03 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
The real problem is that a CLASS now responds to the packages message. Stef On Dec 3, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Stephan Eggermont step...@stack.nl wrote: Mariano wrote: You will only have problems with class side #packages. Are all those 35 class side? 5 out of 35. 4 of which are in Pharo 3

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-03 Thread Stephan Eggermont
Stef wrote: The real problem is that a CLASS now responds to the packages message. SUnitAPIDocumentation also implements packages class-side. If I try to add a instance side method #bla I get a debugger (but the method is added). Searching for implementors then also returns a debugger. I

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-03 Thread Stephan Eggermont
I could copy the separate packages, but not the slice. Please note that the added test is expected to fail on all builds containing Grease-Core. Stephan

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-02 Thread Stephan Eggermont
Stef wrote: Do you think that if an external library redefines the semantics of #class, it will be a Pharo bug? I don’t know. I know I have 35 implementers of #packages in my Moose image, and 191 senders. And I know that in Magritte 3 we changed from using #description to #magritteDescription

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-12-02 Thread Mariano Martinez Peck
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Stephan Eggermont step...@stack.nl wrote: Stef wrote: Do you think that if an external library redefines the semantics of #class, it will be a Pharo bug? I don’t know. I know I have 35 implementers of #packages in my Moose image, and 191 senders. You will

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-09-20 Thread Mariano Martinez Peck
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Stéphane Ducasse stephane.duca...@inria.fr wrote: I do not understand why it would be a GreasePackage What are grease package? if grease override the packages messages then I do not see why it would be a pharo bug. This is like if you redefine class and

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-09-06 Thread Stéphane Ducasse
Hi mariano I have no idea what is a GRPackage. packageFromOrganizer: anRPackageOrganizer This method returns the package this method belongs to. It takes into account classes and traits. If the method is in no package, returns nil by now self flag: 'TODO: use

[Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

2013-08-28 Thread Mariano Martinez Peck
Hi guys, I was trying to build a new image with latest Pharo 2.0 with all the frameworks I use. While installing, I get a dnu in: packageFromOrganizer: anRPackageOrganizer This method returns the package this method belongs to. It takes into account classes and traits. If the method is in no