[BUG]LimitedWriteStream(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #withStyleFor:do:

> MethodNode decompile: #printPragmasOn:.
> MethodNode decompile: #printPrimitiveOn:.
> MethodNode decompile: #printWithClosureAnalysisOn:.
> MethodNode decompile: #asColorizedSmalltalk80Text.
> ...
>
> 11 May 2010 12:17:10.534 am
> VM: Win32 - Smalltalk
> Image: Squeak4.1 [latest update: #9957]
>
> LimitedWriteStream(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #withStyleFor:do:
> Receiver: a LimitedWriteStream 'selector: '
> Arguments and temporary variables:
> aMessage: withStyleFor: #methodArgument do: [closure] in [] in
> BytecodeAgnostic...etc...
> exception: MessageNotUnderstood: LimitedWriteStream>>withStyleFor:do:
> resumeValue: nil
> Receiver's instance variables:
> collection: 'selector:
>
>

> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
> On 5/10/2010 8:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> MethodNode decompile: #printPragmasOn:.
>> MethodNode decompile: #printPrimitiveOn:.
>> MethodNode decompile: #printWithClosureAnalysisOn:.
>> MethodNode decompile: #asColorizedSmalltalk80Text.
>> ...
>>
>> 11 May 2010 12:17:10.534 am
>> VM: Win32 - Smalltalk
>> Image: Squeak4.1 [latest update: #9957]
>>
>> LimitedWriteStream(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #withStyleFor:do:
>>        Receiver: a LimitedWriteStream 'selector: '
>>        Arguments and temporary variables:
>>                aMessage:       withStyleFor: #methodArgument do: [closure]
>> in [] in
>> BytecodeAgnostic...etc...
>>                exception:      MessageNotUnderstood:
>> LimitedWriteStream>>withStyleFor:do:
>>                resumeValue:    nil
>>        Receiver's instance variables:
>>                collection:     'selector:
>>
>>
>
>
>

> Besides, instruction manuals for human behavior? Nah.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hernán
>
> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>:
>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>> On 5/10/2010 8:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> MethodNode decompile: #printPragmasOn:.
>>> MethodNode decompile: #printPrimitiveOn:.
>>> MethodNode decompile: #printWithClosureAnalysisOn:.
>>> MethodNode decompile: #asColorizedSmalltalk80Text.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 11 May 2010 12:17:10.534 am
>>> VM: Win32 - Smalltalk
>>> Image: Squeak4.1 [latest update: #9957]
>>>
>>> LimitedWriteStream(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #withStyleFor:do:
>>>         Receiver: a LimitedWriteStream 'selector: '
>>>         Arguments and temporary variables:
>>>                 aMessage:       withStyleFor: #methodArgument do: [closure]
>>> in [] in
>>> BytecodeAgnostic...etc...
>>>                 exception:      MessageNotUnderstood:
>>> LimitedWriteStream>>withStyleFor:do:
>>>                 resumeValue:    nil
>>>         Receiver's instance variables:
>>>                 collection:     'selector:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>
> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>
> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>
> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you have
> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless you
> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression test
> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation, too;
> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement text
> and which pages it should go on.
>
> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your problem.
> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).

> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>
> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you are
> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have found
> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the bug
> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have messed
> up."
>

> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>:
>> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>>
>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>>
>> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>>
>> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you have
>> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless you
>> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression test
>> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
>> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation, too;
>> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement text
>> and which pages it should go on.
>>
>> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your problem.
>> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
>> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).
>
> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail, you may do
> anything you want with it. Maybe the guy who wrote that have a lot of
> free time to read documentation, maybe he was paid for supporting open
> source software, I'm not.
>
>> This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong, not
>> the software.
>
> Prescriptive statement, besides, it's always about the people.
>
>>
>> The people who wrote the software work very hard to make it work as well as
>> possible.
>
> Hasty generalization or composition
>
>> If you claim you have found a bug, you'll be impugning their
>> competence,
>
> Irrelevant association, quality or correcteness of a particularization
> doesn't imply inherently qualities of generalizations like competence.
>
>> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
>> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>>
>> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you are
>> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have found
>> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
>> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the bug
>> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have messed
>> up."
>>
>
> He seems concerned about public behavior and specially the moral value
> of apologies (although his vocabulary is really far from a
> professional sociologist or specialist in moral ethics). Let's focus
> to this "incorrect" behavior, you suggest it's not a bug, so it
> shouldn't be fixed? Or you would not integrate a fix for it? I would
> appreciate if you explain why the MNU #withStyleFor:do: isn't a bug so
> I can adapt my tools around it.
> Cheers,
>
> Hernán
>
>

> On 5/11/2010 12:51 AM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> This is diversion, my e-mail was not intended to diagnose social
>> action, the power of conventions or norms.
>
> It may be a diversion, but mostly it's an attempt to explain to you that
> your e-mail was completely useless. For some reason you are assuming that
> everyone must know why you think you've discovered a bug, even though you
> are neither providing context nor rationale for your foregone conclusion.
>
> Hint: The DNU you've encountered cannot happen in 4.1. There are simply no
> senders of that method. If you still think you've discovered a bug you'll
> have to back up your claims with *some* substance.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>>>
>>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>>>
>>> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>>>
>>> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you
>>> have
>>> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless
>>> you
>>> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression
>>> test
>>> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
>>> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation,
>>> too;
>>> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement
>>> text
>>> and which pages it should go on.
>>>
>>> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your
>>> problem.
>>> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
>>> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).
>>
>> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail, you may do
>> anything you want with it. Maybe the guy who wrote that have a lot of
>> free time to read documentation, maybe he was paid for supporting open
>> source software, I'm not.
>>
>>> This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong,
>>> not
>>> the software.
>>
>> Prescriptive statement, besides, it's always about the people.
>>
>>>
>>> The people who wrote the software work very hard to make it work as well
>>> as
>>> possible.
>>
>> Hasty generalization or composition
>>
>>> If you claim you have found a bug, you'll be impugning their
>>> competence,
>>
>> Irrelevant association, quality or correcteness of a particularization
>> doesn't imply inherently qualities of generalizations like competence.
>>
>>> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
>>> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>>>
>>> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you
>>> are
>>> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have
>>> found
>>> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
>>> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the
>>> bug
>>> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have
>>> messed
>>> up."
>>>
>>
>> He seems concerned about public behavior and specially the moral value
>> of apologies (although his vocabulary is really far from a
>> professional sociologist or specialist in moral ethics). Let's focus
>> to this "incorrect" behavior, you suggest it's not a bug, so it
>> shouldn't be fixed? Or you would not integrate a fix for it? I would
>> appreciate if you explain why the MNU #withStyleFor:do: isn't a bug so
>> I can adapt my tools around it.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Hernán
>>
>>
>
>
>

> Hi Hernan,
> I agree with Bert and Andreas, your message is not informative enough.
> I strongly encourage you to search #withStyleFor:do: in squeak-dev archives.
>
> You will find a very recent message from Igor (may 2nd) with an answer
> - and thanks to automatic commits - you have full tracability of
> refactorings and will trace what happened to this message.
>
> If it appears that this message is usefull (for which package ?) you then can:
> - easily solve the problem for yourself (restore #withStyleFor:do:)
> - come back with a rationale for solving it for everyone
>  * either restore the message
>  * or clean the package
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>> On 5/11/2010 12:51 AM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> This is diversion, my e-mail was not intended to diagnose social
>>> action, the power of conventions or norms.
>>
>> It may be a diversion, but mostly it's an attempt to explain to you that
>> your e-mail was completely useless. For some reason you are assuming that
>> everyone must know why you think you've discovered a bug, even though you
>> are neither providing context nor rationale for your foregone conclusion.
>>
>> Hint: The DNU you've encountered cannot happen in 4.1. There are simply no
>> senders of that method. If you still think you've discovered a bug you'll
>> have to back up your claims with *some* substance.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>>>>
>>>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>>>>
>>>> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>>>>
>>>> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you
>>>> have
>>>> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless
>>>> you
>>>> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression
>>>> test
>>>> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
>>>> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation,
>>>> too;
>>>> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement
>>>> text
>>>> and which pages it should go on.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your
>>>> problem.
>>>> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
>>>> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).
>>>
>>> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail, you may do
>>> anything you want with it. Maybe the guy who wrote that have a lot of
>>> free time to read documentation, maybe he was paid for supporting open
>>> source software, I'm not.
>>>
>>>> This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong,
>>>> not
>>>> the software.
>>>
>>> Prescriptive statement, besides, it's always about the people.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The people who wrote the software work very hard to make it work as well
>>>> as
>>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Hasty generalization or composition
>>>
>>>> If you claim you have found a bug, you'll be impugning their
>>>> competence,
>>>
>>> Irrelevant association, quality or correcteness of a particularization
>>> doesn't imply inherently qualities of generalizations like competence.
>>>
>>>> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
>>>> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>>>>
>>>> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you
>>>> are
>>>> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have
>>>> found
>>>> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
>>>> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the
>>>> bug
>>>> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have
>>>> messed
>>>> up."
>>>>
>>>
>>> He seems concerned about public behavior and specially the moral value
>>> of apologies (although his vocabulary is really far from a
>>> professional sociologist or specialist in moral ethics). Let's focus
>>> to this "incorrect" behavior, you suggest it's not a bug, so it
>>> shouldn't be fixed? Or you would not integrate a fix for it? I would
>>> appreciate if you explain why the MNU #withStyleFor:do: isn't a bug so
>>> I can adapt my tools around it.
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Hernán
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> On 11.05.2010, at 00:51, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail
>
> Your message was not informative. We could just have ignored it. Instead, we are trying to help you reformulate your problem. The response you got is an excellent essay on how to get help.
>
> You still have not stated where you see the problem or how to reproduce it. Until you do, we'll just ignore it. Better?
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>

> Hi guys,
>
> My fault, it was an overriden method I did once because that method
> didn't handle printing colorized methods with primitives in Squeak
> 3.x. I don't know if I can reproduce it again because the dependency
> browser decompiles everything and that particular case is lost.
>
> I really would like some kind of warning before loading an override of
> a base system behavior, but that depends of some way to identify the
> subsystems first and then say "this belongs to the system" "this
> belongs to the base class library"?.
>

> @Bert, normative texts are never excellent.
>
> Hernán
>
> 2010/5/11 Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]>:
>> On 11.05.2010, at 00:51, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail
>>
>> Your message was not informative. We could just have ignored it. Instead, we are trying to help you reformulate your problem. The response you got is an excellent essay on how to get help.
>>
>> You still have not stated where you see the problem or how to reproduce it. Until you do, we'll just ignore it. Better?
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
> On 11 May 2010 20:30, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> My fault, it was an overriden method I did once because that method
>> didn't handle printing colorized methods with primitives in Squeak
>> 3.x. I don't know if I can reproduce it again because the dependency
>> browser decompiles everything and that particular case is lost.
>>
>> I really would like some kind of warning before loading an override of
>> a base system behavior, but that depends of some way to identify the
>> subsystems first and then say "this belongs to the system" "this
>> belongs to the base class library"?.
>>
> which brings us back to another thread, which i started recently,
> named 'Overrides. Evil. ... '
>
> but it seems that my concerns are not shared by majority of people here,
> given many +1's indicating that they don't see it as a problem, but
> instead think its a cool&userful feature,
> and don't want to do anything with that.

> On 5/12/2010 1:29 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> 2010/5/12 Frank Shearar<[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On 2010/05/11 19:30, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Bert, normative texts are never excellent.
>>>
>>> Isn't this a normative text? :)
>>>
>>
>> No. Why?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
>
>        "Normative has specialized meanings in several academic disciplines.
> Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model. In practice,
> it has strong connotations of relating to a typical  standard or model (see
> also normality)."
>
> Your statement sounded pretty normative to me.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>
>

> Andreas,
>
> You already know that I respect a lot your work in Squeak and your
> will to help the community with your high skills in Smalltalk, most
> people like me are very grateful for your support all these years.
> Said that, I want to add I'm not happy of having to read some
> sentences in this thread.
>
> This is not the first time I see people appealing to Wikipedia
> ("authority") to support their claims, once I suffered listening to a
> guy (a .NET developer) which have never read a single line of
> Aristotle's work, reading me a Wikipedia excerpt of Metaphysics, where
> any student of Philosophy knows it takes years to truly understand and
> explain the work. Please do not take as if I'm comparing you with the
> .NET developer, actually I think Smalltalk gurus are more receptive to
> humanities, and that's why I take the time here to clarify some
> things, like you take the time to answer technical questions about
> Smalltalk. I feel many of you may take another view of things related
> with humanities, not better but complementary. That's why you will see
> me from time to time criticizing some texts too.
>
> In a sense, most of our common words have their own worlds.
> Normativity in the philosophical sense (for wikipedia readers, there
> is another entry which you may read to understand my conception of
> Normativity, although is incomplete and lacks of good references, it
> is enough) is one of those specialities very hard to understand (I
> should clarify I'm not expert in Normativity, but have assisted to
> Conferences and read papers regularly). Now it would be really easy
> for me to cite any book describing the theoretical principles of
> critical analysis of discourse, where the concepts of discursive
> process, fields, social identities, conditions of production,
> circulation and reception of texts, etc. are all explained.
> Normativity has a lot to do with discourses of power, forms of
> individuation, disciplinary mechanisms, social structures and
> rethorics. All enormous subjects. But instead of boring all the
> comunity longer, I will offer to anyone that do not hesitate to ask me
> for references privately, I will be very glad to see someone
> interested in these topics, it would be nice to share a space for
> discussing essays too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hernán
>
> 2010/5/12 Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>:
>> On 5/12/2010 1:29 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> 2010/5/12 Frank Shearar<[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>> On 2010/05/11 19:30, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Bert, normative texts are never excellent.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this a normative text? :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Why?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
>>
>>         "Normative has specialized meanings in several academic disciplines.
>> Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model. In practice,
>> it has strong connotations of relating to a typical  standard or model (see
>> also normality)."
>>
>> Your statement sounded pretty normative to me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>