Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Stephan Can you stop ranting for ranting and be positive thinking? Don't you think that are ARE PAYING ATTENTION!!! We will NOT END UP looking like some other systems! If you want to help here is a concrete proposal (we want to do it but we are busy doing bullshit works like reviewing fix and fixing typos around). - Gather all the deprecated methods in the past Pharo versions starting with Pharo 60. - add Transform rule when posible - package them so that people can load it and get helped during their migration EASY NO? sorry but I have something to hear that such kind of emails. Stef On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > Sean P. DeNigris wrote: >> Or are you saying there should be a collection of rewrite rules even after >> the method is totally removed so one can bring a very old project up to the >> newest APIs? > > Making sure the code works in each intermediate version of Pharo is > increasingly unattractive. It also requires indefinite support of all the > old pharo versions. A collection of separate rewrite rules looks to me like > the right thing to both explain changes and speed up migrations. > > Stephan > >
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Or are you saying there should be a collection of rewrite rules even after > the method is totally removed so one can bring a very old project up to the > newest APIs? Making sure the code works in each intermediate version of Pharo is increasingly unattractive. It also requires indefinite support of all the old pharo versions. A collection of separate rewrite rules looks to me like the right thing to both explain changes and speed up migrations. Stephan
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Esteban A. Maringolo wrote >> That means with a code rewrite rule. Deprecations are not enough. > Why not both? It seems like you're both saying the same thing, no? Isn't this all accomplished via: self deprecated: 'Renamed to #action because now accepts any valuable as an action (e.g. aBlock).' on: '10/24/2017' in: #Pharo61 transformWith: '`@receiver selector' -> '`@receiver action'. Or are you saying there should be a collection of rewrite rules even after the method is totally removed so one can bring a very old project up to the newest APIs? - Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
2018-02-23 14:50 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont : > Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable. > > It needs to be done in a way that is sustainable. That means with a code > rewrite rule. Deprecations are not enough. The number of people who can > migrate forwards older code is very small, especially as we are missing > crucial parts of design discussion that took place on slack and were not > copied to mail. Why not both? With a noisy enough deprecation warning and a handy rewrite rules script it would ease the transition. AFAIR the procedure was to mark as deprecated in one release and remove completely in the next one. Best regards! Esteban A. Maringolo
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake of > backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to > fix a couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation. > > Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable. It needs to be done in a way that is sustainable. That means with a code rewrite rule. Deprecations are not enough. The number of people who can migrate forwards older code is very small, especially as we are missing crucial parts of design discussion that took place on slack and were not copied to mail. When I created my Morphic screencasts I had to look back to mailing list discussions from 10 years ago and had to run ancient squeak images to gain an understanding of how things were supposed to work and how they changed. Cleanups at this low level need to be done with rewrite rules (and tests) Stephan
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe
wrote:
>
>
> > On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse <
> stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Clement
> >
> > can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
> >
> >
> > What is the bug?
>
> Having two selectors doing the same thing is bad and confuses everybody.
> So that is a 'bug'.
>
> > You want to merge the two selectors and break compatibility with
> frameworks using the removed one?
>
> Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake of
> backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to fix
> a couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation.
>
> Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable.
>
Ok.
Is the nil injection a feature or a bug too ? Should it be removed ?
>
> > Stef
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
> > > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
> > > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
> > >
> > > One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment,
> they're
> > > both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility
> purpose (One
> > > is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be
> used,
> > > the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have
> it for
> > > cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is
> really
> > > needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement
> one,
> > > if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement
> both.
> > >
> > > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they
> expect
> > > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to
> the
> > > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
> > > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were
> preferred.
> > >
> > > Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
> > > cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
> > > parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while
> debugging
> > > your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
> > > tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to
> these
> > > two methods.
> > >
> > > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
> > > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
> > > update process the change to the caller is installed before the change
> of
> > > the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
> > > injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
> > > compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't
> find a
> > > framework doing that right now.
> > >
> > > Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one
> else
> > > has a different point of view.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr >
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi:
> > >>
> > >> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
> > >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
> > >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
> > >>
> > >> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
> > >>
> > >> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo
> 6.1
> > >> download:
> > >>
> > >> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
> > >> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
> > >>
> > >> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
> > >> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
> > >>
> > >> blocks := {
> > >> [ { } ].
> > >> [:a | { a } ].
> > >> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> > >> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> > >> }.
> > >>
> > >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> > >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> > >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> > >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
> > >>
> > >> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
> > >>
> > >> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and
> valueWithE*
> > >> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
> #cull*
> > >> methods signal an error.
> > >> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here
> as
> > >> well, but instead inject nils?
> > >>
> > >> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Stefan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Stefan Marr
> > >> School of Computing, University of Kent
> > >> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clément Béra
> > > Pharo consortium engineer
> > > https://clementber
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
++999^1000 :)
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Stephane Ducasse
wrote:
> Thanks Sven
> I thought that suddenly I was an idiot.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse <
> stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Clement
> >>
> >> can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the bug?
> >
> > Having two selectors doing the same thing is bad and confuses everybody.
> So that is a 'bug'.
> >
> >> You want to merge the two selectors and break compatibility with
> frameworks using the removed one?
> >
> > Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake
> of backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to
> fix a couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation.
> >
> > Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable.
> >
> >> Stef
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera
> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
> >> > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
> >> > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
> >> >
> >> > One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment,
> they're
> >> > both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility
> purpose (One
> >> > is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should
> be used,
> >> > the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have
> it for
> >> > cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is
> really
> >> > needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just
> implement one,
> >> > if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement
> both.
> >> >
> >> > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they
> expect
> >> > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to
> the
> >> > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used
> as
> >> > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were
> preferred.
> >> >
> >> > Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
> >> > cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
> >> > parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while
> debugging
> >> > your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will
> be
> >> > tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to
> these
> >> > two methods.
> >> >
> >> > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when
> changing
> >> > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during
> the
> >> > update process the change to the caller is installed before the
> change of
> >> > the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for
> instance),
> >> > injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
> >> > compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't
> find a
> >> > framework doing that right now.
> >> >
> >> > Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one
> else
> >> > has a different point of view.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr <
> smallt...@stefan-marr.de>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi:
> >> >>
> >> >> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
> >> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
> >> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
> >> >>
> >> >> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
> >> >>
> >> >> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the
> Pharo 6.1
> >> >> download:
> >> >>
> >> >> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
> >> >> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
> >> >>
> >> >> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
> >> >> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
> >> >>
> >> >> blocks := {
> >> >> [ { } ].
> >> >> [:a | { a } ].
> >> >> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> >> >> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> >> >> }.
> >> >>
> >> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> >> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> >> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> >> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
> >> >>
> >> >> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
> >> >>
> >> >> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and
> valueWithE*
> >> >> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value*
> and #cull*
> >> >> methods signal an error.
> >> >> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here
> as
> >> >> well, but instead inject nils?
> >> >>
> >> >> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Stefan
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> St
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Thanks Sven
I thought that suddenly I was an idiot.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>
>
>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse
>> wrote:
>> Clement
>>
>> can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
>>
>>
>> What is the bug?
>
> Having two selectors doing the same thing is bad and confuses everybody. So
> that is a 'bug'.
>
>> You want to merge the two selectors and break compatibility with frameworks
>> using the removed one?
>
> Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake of
> backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to fix a
> couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation.
>
> Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable.
>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
>> > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
>> > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
>> >
>> > One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment,
>> > they're
>> > both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose
>> > (One
>> > is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be
>> > used,
>> > the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have it for
>> > cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is really
>> > needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement one,
>> > if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement both.
>> >
>> > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect
>> > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
>> > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
>> > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were
>> > preferred.
>> >
>> > Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
>> > cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
>> > parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while debugging
>> > your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
>> > tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to these
>> > two methods.
>> >
>> > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
>> > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
>> > update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
>> > the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
>> > injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
>> > compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
>> > framework doing that right now.
>> >
>> > Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one else
>> > has a different point of view.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi:
>> >>
>> >> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
>> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
>> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
>> >>
>> >> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
>> >>
>> >> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
>> >> download:
>> >>
>> >> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
>> >> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
>> >>
>> >> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
>> >> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
>> >>
>> >> blocks := {
>> >> [ { } ].
>> >> [:a | { a } ].
>> >> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
>> >> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
>> >> }.
>> >>
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
>> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>> >>
>> >> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
>> >>
>> >> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
>> >> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
>> >> #cull*
>> >> methods signal an error.
>> >> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
>> >> well, but instead inject nils?
>> >>
>> >> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Stefan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Stefan Marr
>> >> School of Computing, University of Kent
>> >> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clément Béra
>> > Pharo consortium engineer
>> > https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
>> > Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clément Béra
>> Pharo consortium engineer
>> https://clementbera.wor
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
> On 22 Feb 2018, at 10:41, Clément Bera wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse
> wrote:
> Clement
>
> can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
>
>
> What is the bug?
Having two selectors doing the same thing is bad and confuses everybody. So
that is a 'bug'.
> You want to merge the two selectors and break compatibility with frameworks
> using the removed one?
Either we keep on adding cruft (or leaving cruft in place) in the sake of
backwards compatibility or be do something about it. It is not hard to fix a
couple of senders. It could be done more softly with a deprecation.
Cleanups at the level of Object are particularly valuable.
> Stef
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
> > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
> > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
> >
> > One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment, they're
> > both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose (One
> > is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be used,
> > the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have it for
> > cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is really
> > needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement one,
> > if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement both.
> >
> > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect
> > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
> > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
> > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were preferred.
> >
> > Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
> > cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
> > parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while debugging
> > your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
> > tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to these
> > two methods.
> >
> > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
> > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
> > update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
> > the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
> > injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
> > compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
> > framework doing that right now.
> >
> > Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one else
> > has a different point of view.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi:
> >>
> >> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
> >>
> >> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
> >>
> >> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
> >> download:
> >>
> >> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
> >> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
> >>
> >> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
> >> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
> >>
> >> blocks := {
> >> [ { } ].
> >> [:a | { a } ].
> >> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> >> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> >> }.
> >>
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
> >>
> >> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
> >>
> >> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
> >> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
> >> #cull*
> >> methods signal an error.
> >> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
> >> well, but instead inject nils?
> >>
> >> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stefan Marr
> >> School of Computing, University of Kent
> >> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clément Béra
> > Pharo consortium engineer
> > https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
> > Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
>
>
>
>
> --
> Clément Béra
> Pharo consortium engineer
> https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
> Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Stephane Ducasse
wrote:
> Clement
>
> can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
>
>
What is the bug? You want to merge the two selectors and break
compatibility with frameworks using the removed one?
> Stef
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
> > valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
> > valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
> >
> > One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment,
> they're
> > both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose
> (One
> > is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be
> used,
> > the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have it
> for
> > cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is
> really
> > needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement
> one,
> > if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement both.
> >
> > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they
> expect
> > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
> > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
> > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were
> preferred.
> >
> > Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
> > cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
> > parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while
> debugging
> > your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
> > tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to these
> > two methods.
> >
> > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
> > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
> > update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
> > the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
> > injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
> > compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
> > framework doing that right now.
> >
> > Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one
> else
> > has a different point of view.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi:
> >>
> >> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
> >> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
> >>
> >> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
> >>
> >> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo
> 6.1
> >> download:
> >>
> >> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
> >> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
> >>
> >> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
> >> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
> >>
> >> blocks := {
> >> [ { } ].
> >> [:a | { a } ].
> >> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> >> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> >> }.
> >>
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> >> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
> >>
> >> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
> >>
> >> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and
> valueWithE*
> >> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
> #cull*
> >> methods signal an error.
> >> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
> >> well, but instead inject nils?
> >>
> >> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stefan Marr
> >> School of Computing, University of Kent
> >> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clément Béra
> > Pharo consortium engineer
> > https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
> > Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
>
>
--
Clément Béra
Pharo consortium engineer
https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Clement
can you open a bug entry so that we clean this situation?
Stef
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Clément Bera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
>
> One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment, they're
> both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility purpose (One
> is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that should be used,
> the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks so we have it for
> cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but only one is really
> needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can just implement one,
> if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk lib implement both.
>
> All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect
> the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
> number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
> #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were preferred.
>
> Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just
> cullWithArguments: since they inject nils if there are not enough
> parameters. To me it looks incorrect to do so because then while debugging
> your code you will get issues due to those injected nils and it will be
> tedious for the application programmer to track the problem down to these
> two methods.
>
> There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
> existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
> update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
> the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
> injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
> compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
> framework doing that right now.
>
> Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one else
> has a different point of view.
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
>> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and
>> BlockClosure>>#valueWithEnoughArguments:
>>
>> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
>>
>> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
>> download:
>>
>> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
>> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
>>
>> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
>> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
>>
>> blocks := {
>> [ { } ].
>> [:a | { a } ].
>> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
>> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
>> }.
>>
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
>> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>>
>> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
>>
>> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
>> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and #cull*
>> methods signal an error.
>> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
>> well, but instead inject nils?
>>
>> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Marr
>> School of Computing, University of Kent
>> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Clément Béra
> Pharo consortium engineer
> https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
> Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Ah, sorry, yes #valueWithArguments: does throw errors.
Best regards
Stefan
> On 19 Feb 2018, at 20:17, Stefan Marr wrote:
>
> Hi Mariano:
>
>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 20:09, Mariano Martinez Peck
>> wrote:
>>
>> I guess it's because we offer both flavors. If you see valueWithArguments:
>> you will see it does throw errors like #value* / #cull* do.
>
> Did you try my examples?
> I don’t think this is correct.
> In Pharo 6.1, #valueWithArguments: doesn’t throw any errors as far as I can
> see. It inserts nil for absent arguments however.
>
> This is what I tried:
>
> blocks := {
> [ { } ].
> [:a | { a } ].
> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> }.
>
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>
>
> Best regards
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> Stefan Marr
> School of Computing, University of Kent
> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>
>
--
Stefan Marr
School of Computing, University of Kent
http://stefan-marr.de/research/
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Hi Mariano:
> On 19 Feb 2018, at 20:09, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
> I guess it's because we offer both flavors. If you see valueWithArguments:
> you will see it does throw errors like #value* / #cull* do.
Did you try my examples?
I don’t think this is correct.
In Pharo 6.1, #valueWithArguments: doesn’t throw any errors as far as I can
see. It inserts nil for absent arguments however.
This is what I tried:
blocks := {
[ { } ].
[:a | { a } ].
[:a :b | { a. b } ].
[:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
}.
blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
Best regards
Stefan
--
Stefan Marr
School of Computing, University of Kent
http://stefan-marr.de/research/
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Stefan Marr
wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and BlockClosure>>#
> valueWithEnoughArguments:
>
> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
>
> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
> download:
>
> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
>
> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
>
> blocks := {
> [ { } ].
> [:a | { a } ].
> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> }.
>
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>
> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
>
> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
> #cull* methods signal an error.
> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
> well, but instead inject nils?
>
I guess it's because we offer both flavors. If you see valueWithArguments:
you will see it does throw errors like #value* / #cull* do.
> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> Stefan Marr
> School of Computing, University of Kent
> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>
>
>
>
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Hi Clement: Thanks for looking into this! > On 19 Feb 2018, at 11:43, Clément Bera wrote: > > they're both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility > purpose Ok, good to know. Thanks. > All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect > the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the > number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they’re used as > #cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were preferred. > [...] > There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing > existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the > update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of the > callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance), injecting > nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for compatibility > with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can’t find a framework doing > that right now. Ok, great. In the end, I only added #cullArguments: instead of the #valueWith* variants [1]. The naming seems to communicate more clearly the expected semantics, and it’s different from the previous ones. So, in case it turns out someone needs those with nil injecting semantics, they could be added later. Thanks Stefan [1] https://github.com/smarr/SOMns/pull/215/files#diff-8dd7efb0aab92cd4b39e0bf845dea9a2R621 -- Stefan Marr School of Computing, University of Kent http://stefan-marr.de/research/
Re: [Pharo-dev] #valueWithPossibleArgs:, #valueWithEnoughArguments:, and #cull:
Hi,
It seems the two methods have exactly the same behavior indeed.
valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray
valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray
One was edited recently but I think it's only to change the comment,
they're both very old. My guess is that there are two for compatibility
purpose (One is the selector that is considered as the most relevant that
should be used, the other one is the one also present in other Smalltalks
so we have it for cross-Smalltalk librairies or something like that), but
only one is really needed. If you need only the concept for SOM-NS you can
just implement one, if you want to be compatible with different Smalltalk
lib implement both.
All use-cases of these methods I have found do not inject nils, they expect
the block to have a number of arguments of the block less or equal to the
number of parameters in the argument array. I would say they're used as
#cullWithArguments: but for some reason other selector names were
preferred.
Now, as you mentioned, these two methods are more than just cullWithArguments:
since they inject nils if there are not enough parameters. To me it looks
incorrect to do so because then while debugging your code you will get
issues due to those injected nils and it will be tedious for the
application programmer to track the problem down to these two methods.
There a few use-cases for nil injection though. Typically when changing
existing frameworks in multiple repositories, it may be that during the
update process the change to the caller is installed before the change of
the callee, and if the code is actually used (code in UI for instance),
injecting nils might avoid system break-down. Another use-case is for
compatibility with frameworks using the nil injection, but I can't find a
framework doing that right now.
Honestly, I would not implement the nil injection, but maybe some one else
has a different point of view.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Stefan Marr
wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I am trying to understand the different between and perhaps origin of
> BlockClosure>>#valueWithPossibleArgs: and BlockClosure>>#
> valueWithEnoughArguments:
>
> I am trying to decide which of the two I need for SOMns.
>
> The first one has seen more recent changes, when looking at the Pharo 6.1
> download:
>
> valueWithPossibleArgs: anArray—> 2/12/2017 StephaneDucasse
> valueWithEnoughArguments: anArray —> 3/11/2001 nk
>
> While they have rather different implementations, they seem to behave
> identically, as far as I could tell using the following example:
>
> blocks := {
> [ { } ].
> [:a | { a } ].
> [:a :b | { a. b } ].
> [:a :b :c | { a. b. c } ]
> }.
>
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithPossibleArgs: {1. 2. 3}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1}].
> blocks collect: [:b | b valueWithEnoughArguments: {1. 2. 3}].
>
> I was also wondering how they relate to #cull:*
>
> One of the major differences seems to be that valueWithP* and valueWithE*
> are both injecting nil for absent arguments, while normal #value* and
> #cull* methods signal an error.
> Is there a specific use case why one wouldn’t want to be strict here as
> well, but instead inject nils?
>
> Any comments or pointer appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> Stefan Marr
> School of Computing, University of Kent
> http://stefan-marr.de/research/
>
>
>
>
--
Clément Béra
Pharo consortium engineer
https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
