[Ann] Calypso update: method browser and better UI

> At Stef's request, I've opened case 19629 on this issue.
>
> On 01/27/2017 11:14 PM, Andres Valloud wrote:
>>> The 2007 update of 10967 is somewhat more helpful. It replaces the
>>> "sign" operation with one called "signum" which returns 1, -1, or NaN.
>>> It returns 1 for positive zero and positive infinity, and -1 for
>>> negative zero and negative infinity. If given a qNaN, it returns a  
>>> qNaN.
>>> If given a signaling NaN, it returns a qNaN but notifies the  
>>> application
>>> of an "invalid" situation.
>>
>> That's ISO 10967.  However, IEEE-758-2008 specifies implementations
>> shall provide isSignMinus(x).  This operation is true if and only if x
>> has negative sign, and applies to zeros and NaNs.
>>
>> IMO, values that operate according to IEEE-758-2008 should behave as
>> specified by IEEE-758-2008 by default.  The ISO 10967 standard seems
>> more of a layer on top of things like IEEE-758-2008, because it's a
>> standard for language agnostic arithmetic.
>>
>> So, shouldn't #sign behave as in IEEE-758-2008?
>>
>>     ^self isSignMinus ifTrue: [-1] ifFalse: [1]
>
> I think that defining #sign this way would add to the confusion.
>
> IEEE-754 does not define a "sign" operation. ANSI Smalltalk and ISO/IEC
> 10967 do, so it makes sense to provide a #sign that conforms to those
> standards -- answering -1, 0, or 1.
>
> IEEE-754 does define an isSignMinus operation, answering true or false,
> so it makes sense to provide that operation in addition to the ones
> specified by the other standards.
>
>>
>> It looks like the real question is whether Float's methods are merely
>> renaming IEEE-758-2008 functionality (if yes, why rename at all and add
>> to the confusion?), ISO 10967 functionality, or are something else
>> entirely (e.g. Smalltalk provided behavior in the context of the
>> Smalltalk experience).
>
> First and foremost, Smalltalk. The ANSI Smalltalk numeric spec is based
> on 10967, but that standard lacks some operations found in IEEE-754. But
> those have different names anyway, so it's easy in this case to comply
> with *both* standards.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Martin
>

>
> 2017-01-31 1:20 GMT+01:00 Stephan Eggermont
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     Nice!
>
>           * white toolbar (according to theme background color)
>
>
>     That doesn't work well. Don't mix styles like this, that is
>     confusing.
>
>
> Why? It was by intention. Idea to make toolbar with same color as main
> table panels. And they have default background color