Re: [Pharo-dev] [TechTalk] April 12: GIT with Iceberg

This is today 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM (UTC+02:00) There is a calendar entry to download at: https://association.pharo.org/event-2797068 > On 10 Apr 2018, at 16:34, Marcus Denker wrote: > > Hi, > > There next TechTalk will be April 12: GIT with Iceberg > > https://association.pharo.org/even

Re: [Pharo-dev] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

> On 12 Apr 2018, at 08:33, Alistair Grant wrote: > > Hi Sven, > > On 11 April 2018 at 20:47, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Alistair, >> >>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 19:42, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> >>> I will send you some code later on. >> >> Today I arranged for my NeoConsole code (

[Pharo-dev] [Newsletter] Content Needed

Hi, The Pharo Monthly Newsletter is working quite well. https://newsletter.pharo.org We now reached a level where it is not just 3 things, but much much more.. of course this comes with a downside: - Sometimes topics that would be worth a small article a

Re: [Pharo-dev] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

> On 12 Apr 2018, at 04:07, Ben Coman wrote: > > > > On 12 April 2018 at 04:25, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > > On 11 Apr 2018, at 21:44, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > > > > I did not know about the NeoConsole. Nice because I wanted to build a > > little REPL for my minilanguage implemen

Re: [Pharo-dev] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

> On 12 Apr 2018, at 03:15, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > Hi Sven, > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > > On 11 Apr 2018, at 21:44, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > > > > I did not know about the NeoConsole. Nice because I wanted to build a > > little REPL for my min

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why String do not implement #displayString?

Ok. I opened the issue 21689 2018-04-11 22:06 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse : > The point is a list of strings should be displayed as > > a > b > c > > and not > > 'a' > 'b' > 'c' > > It shows that often people con

Re: [Pharo-dev] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

Hi Sven, On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 09:23:21AM +0200, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > > On 12 Apr 2018, at 08:33, Alistair Grant wrote: > > > > ... > > > > In your example you've carefully exited by some other means than > > signalling end-of-file (Ctrl-D). > > > > I don't think we can reasonably

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Newsletter] Content Needed

You can mention Chrysal: a library to manage configuration http://github.com/Ducasse/Chrysal Stef On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > Hi, > > The Pharo Monthly Newsletter is working quite well. > https://newsletter.pharo.org > > We now reached a level where it is not just 3 t

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why String do not implement #displayString?

Thanks denis! No problem syrel I was also dead tired :) On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > Ok. I opened the issue 21689 > > 2018-04-11 22:06 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse : >> >> The point is a list of strings should be displayed as >> >> a >> b >> c >> >> and not >> >> 'a'

[Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

in calypso. * was simple and nice. Now if I create a protocol with a star it got eaten and no protocol will be created. Stef

Re: [Pharo-dev] [TechTalk] April 12: GIT with Iceberg

I will not make it but I really want. Let us know where will be the videos. Stef On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > This is today > > 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM (UTC+02:00) > > There is a calendar entry to download at: > https://association.pharo.org/event-2797068 > >> On 10 Apr 201

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

But it shows notification why it does not supported and what to use instead. (it was not available in old versions) Idea to move away from star convention. Calypso gives you explicit tools to add method to the package. Most simple is checkbox "extension" in the status bar of method editor. For now

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

> > In future it should be completely removed (you know how RPackage is ugly > because of that). Only old text code formats will use star protocols. > So Calypso is a step to remove this "star habit" from users. > What is the correct way to generate such methods then? I use Something compile: 'm

[Pharo-dev] How to remove the extra protocol in Calypso

Hi There are too much information by default I'm overhelmed. I would like to remove the following protocols critiques

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

You see. You pushed this idea and at then end we will have to handle the mess. I do not see why we cannot simply support *. Seriously why eveybody on earth has to inforce their own view. Now to declare an extension (it took me at least 10 min) we have to create a protocol then to click on it then t

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

I do not see why we should remove star protocols. It will break many things. Why can't we focus on important next steps. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > But it shows notification why it does not supported and what to use instead. > (it was not available in old versions

Re: [Pharo-dev] How to remove the extra protocol in Calypso

I want to remove critiques overridden overrides THEY GET IN MY WAY. Sorry to have to shout but I have the impression that I'm not heard. Ideally we could have a menu item to show extras things. RIght now each time I browse my class I stop because I have to interpret these new infroamtion and I

Re: [Pharo-dev] How to remove the extra protocol in Calypso

I want that the tools let me to get focused on my task. And now I cannot disable. I do not want to live in a place with neon ads all over the place, I want a calm place where I can pick the tools I need when I need them and that they are not impose on me. BTW I will not adapt the mooc so students

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

2018-04-12 12:31 GMT+02:00 Peter Uhnák : > In future it should be completely removed (you know how RPackage is ugly >> because of that). Only old text code formats will use star protocols. > > >> So Calypso is a step to remove this "star habit" from users. >> > > What is the correct way to generat

Re: [Pharo-dev] How to remove the extra protocol in Calypso

Hi guys I went to discuss with denis. And we will have some settings. And also better names for some menus. And also some fixes because some behavior was confusing and I got confused. Stef On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > I want that the tools let me to get focused on

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Ok let us move away. Now I would like to know all the old ways and clean them. Stef On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > > 2018-04-12 12:31 GMT+02:00 Peter Uhnák : >>> >>> In future it should be completely removed (you know how RPackage is ugly >>> because of that). Only

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

2018-04-12 12:49 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse : > I do not see why we should remove star protocols. Think about future module system which you already started to work with others. I don't think you plan to support string convention there. I just want RIGHT simple things: aMethod package: aPackag

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #761: 21684-Integrate-Iceberg-0.7.1

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #761 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1188 was integrated: "21684-Integrate-Iceberg-0.7.1" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1188 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21684 Build Url: https:

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #762: 21684-Integrate-Iceberg-0.7.1

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #762 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1188 was integrated: "21684-Integrate-Iceberg-0.7.1" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1188 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21684 Build Url: https:

[Pharo-dev] TechTalk on Iceberg will start in 30min (link inside)

here: https://www.youtube.com/estebanlorenzano/live see you there, Esteban

Re: [Pharo-dev] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

On 12 April 2018 at 10:48, Alistair Grant wrote: > > So I'm going to respectfully disagree and say that I think to raise a > MNU instead of returning nil is wrong, and that changing the Zinc > streams isn't such a big deal. Sorry Sven, this sounds like I'm suggesting that your planning to leave t

Re: [Pharo-dev] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

On 11 April 2018 at 20:47, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > But there is something wrong with what is returned by Stdio stdin > I've opened https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21692/StdioStream-incorrectly-delegates-atEnd-and-position-to-file PR in progress. Cheers, Alistair

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo Launcher on Windows > Failing

Hi Phil, I can help you to fix this issue. Can you tell me the list of the files in the folder that is designed by the error? And in the parent folder, there should be a zip file with the same name, can you check if Pharo.exe is here and if the file list is the same? It will be nice if you can s

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo Launcher on Windows > Failing

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-launcher/issues/88 filled in. Thx for the help! Phil On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, wrote: > Hi Phil, > > > > I can help you to fix this issue. Can you tell me the list of the files in > the folder that is designed by the error? > > And in the par

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote > You see. You pushed this idea and at then end we will have to handle the > mess. > I do not see why we cannot simply support *. I'm surprised by this resistance. The *Xyz was always an ugly hack, part of Squeak's overloading the same mechanism for both system categorizat

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Hi Sean, On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote > > You see. You pushed this idea and at then end we will have to handle the > > mess. > > I do not see why we cannot simply support *. > > I'm surprised by this resistance. The *Xyz was always an ugly h

Re: [Pharo-dev] [TechTalk] April 12: GIT with Iceberg

Iceberg 0.7 : new UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9H8jsSnBKM&t=539s On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > I will not make it but I really want. Let us know where will be the videos. > > Stef > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Marcus Denker > wrote: > > This is today >

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Sean you are mixing and other concerns. The tools could show all the collections as projects. Packages are unit of loading. So small modular packages are good. Stef On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote >> You see. You pushed this idea and at then

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Eliot We do not want to go the road of overrides. We want to keep our engineer task forces. Stef On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Sean P. DeNigris > wrote: >> >> Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote >> > You see. You pushed this idea and

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Hi Stephane, On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Eliot > > We do not want to go the road of overrides. We want to keep our > engineer task forces. > There are overrides anyway. In general overrides are unavoidable in some circumstances. The issue is not whether they ex

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

2018-04-12 20:46 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse : > Eliot > > We do not want to go the road of overrides. We want to keep our > engineer task forces. > We will need support this anyway. It's very similar to loading methods extending undefined class (you already have prototype, right?). Imagine that y

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote > you are mixing and other concerns True, they are not the same issue. I guess the connection for me is that they are both examples of overloading a single mechanism to accomplish at best orthogonal and often conflicting goals. Right now we're using dumb strings to define: