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

2018-04-12 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
> 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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Alistair Grant
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Marcus Denker
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 > >

[Pharo-dev] [Newsletter] Content Needed

2018-04-12 Thread Marcus Denker
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Denis Kudriashov
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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: >

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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] Changed #atEnd primitive - #atEnd vs #next returning nil

2018-04-12 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
> 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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Sven Van Caekenberghe
> 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

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

2018-04-12 Thread 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 generate such methods then? I use Something compile:

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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?

2018-04-12 Thread Denis Kudriashov
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2
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:

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

2018-04-12 Thread Denis Kudriashov
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Denis Kudriashov
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:

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Esteban Lorenzano
here: https://www.youtube.com/estebanlorenzano/live see you there, Esteban

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

2018-04-12 Thread Alistair Grant
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2
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:

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Eliot Miranda
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread p...@highoctane.be
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Sean P. DeNigris
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Stephane Ducasse
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras
Iceberg 0.7 : new UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9H8jsSnBKM=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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Denis Kudriashov
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Eliot Miranda
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Sean P. DeNigris
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Alistair Grant
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

2018-04-12 Thread Vincent.Blondeau
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

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

2018-04-12 Thread Alistair Grant
On 11 April 2018 at 19:42, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > > > 2018-04-11 19:08 GMT+02:00 Alistair Grant : >> >> Hi Sven, >> >> On 11 April 2018 at 18:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> > Something is off (and/or I am getting

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

2018-04-12 Thread K K Subbu
On Wednesday 11 April 2018 10:38 PM, Alistair Grant wrote: StandardFileStream>>readInto:startingAt:count: assumes that primitiveFileRead will always attempt to read count bytes, but it actually only attempts to read 1. StandardFileStream>>#basicNext uses position < readLimit ifFalse: and

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

2018-04-12 Thread Alistair Grant
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 (that normally works over a network >

Re: [Pharo-dev] help wanted: normalising LF on tonel for Pharo project

2018-04-12 Thread Thierry Goubier
2018-04-12 7:51 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman : > > > On 12 April 2018 at 12:39, Thierry Goubier > wrote: >> >> Le 12/04/2018 à 03:54, Ben Coman a écrit : >>> >>> >>> I was thinking that a smalltalk-implemented merge algorithm would only be >>> used for the