Issue 2560 : Convenient methods from Grease for Strings

> Hello all,
>
> The trim* messages defined in Grease are really useful.
> I suggest to integrate them in the String class.
>
> Take a look: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2560
>
> Adrien.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Vous voulez protéger votre vie privée ? La solution avec Internet Explorer 8
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> Hi Adrien,
>
> i think it's much better if you include some tests also.
>
> Regards,
>
> 2010/6/17 Adrien BARREAU <[hidden email]>:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The trim* messages defined in Grease are really useful.
>> I suggest to integrate them in the String class.
>>
>> Take a look: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2560
>>
>> Adrien.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Vous voulez protéger votre vie privée ? La solution avec Internet Explorer 8
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Serge Stinckwich
> UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam
> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
> http://doesnotunderstand.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>
> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
> projects that depend on Grease.
>
>
> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
> plattform, we can not
> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?

> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>
>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>
>>
>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>> plattform, we can not
>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>
> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools
> in our version control systems...
>
> Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>
>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>
>>
>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>> plattform, we can not
>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the  
>> core?
>
> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools
> in our version control systems...
>
> Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>
> Lukas
>
> On 17 June 2010 11:57, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Adrien,
>>
>> i think it's much better if you include some tests also.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 2010/6/17 Adrien BARREAU <[hidden email]>:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> The trim* messages defined in Grease are really useful.
>>> I suggest to integrate them in the String class.
>>>
>>> Take a look: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2560
>>>
>>> Adrien.
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Vous voulez protéger votre vie privée ? La solution avec Internet Explorer 8
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Serge Stinckwich
>> UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam
>> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
>> http://doesnotunderstand.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> www.lukas-renggli.ch
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>
>>
>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>> plattform, we can not
>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>
> I agree, from Pharo point of view. However, for any software built on
> top of Pharo it means troubles if Pharo suddenly implements the same
> methods.
>
> Lukas
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> www.lukas-renggli.ch
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>
>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>
>>
>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>> plattform, we can not
>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>
> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
> of unavoidable in the long run anyway?

> I'm missing something. Why do we need to adopt the (copy of) methods and not just adopt the package as lukas said? I thought we wanted core to get smaller over time and better modularised anyway? We would just need to track a stable version rather than maintaining our own branch. Surely it is worse to copy the methods renamed or not but put them in a pharo specific package?
>
>
> Cheers mike
>
> On 17 Jun 2010, at 14:14, Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>>
>>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>>
>>>
>>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>>> plattform, we can not
>>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>>
>> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
>> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
>> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
>> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
>> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
>> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools
>> in our version control systems...
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Stef
>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> I'm missing something. Why do we need to adopt the (copy of)  
>> methods and not just adopt the package as lukas said? I thought we  
>> wanted core to get smaller over time and better modularised anyway?  
>> We would just need to track a stable version rather than  
>> maintaining our own branch. Surely it is worse to copy the methods  
>> renamed or not but put them in a pharo specific package?
>>
>>
>> Cheers mike
>>
>> On 17 Jun 2010, at 14:14, Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>>>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>>>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that  
>>>> as a
>>>> plattform, we can not
>>>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>>>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the  
>>>> core?
>>>
>>> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease  
>>> methods
>>> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from  
>>> our
>>> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
>>> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that  
>>> sort
>>> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
>>> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management  
>>> tools
>>> in our version control systems...
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Julian Fitzell wrote:
>
>> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>>
>>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>>
>>>
>>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>>> plattform, we can not
>>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>>
>> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
>> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
>> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
>> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
>> of unavoidable in the long run anyway?
>
> because you were planning to have only one grease for all the platform.
> Ok this was not obvious.

>
>
> On 21 Jun 2010, at 14:30, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> but do we want all grease?
>>
>
> Well. Not sure. Grease core is not that big. It has other useful stuff in. I
> was in part commenting on the philosophy markus was referring to. I have a
> different point of view.   If we just copy the extensions we have to
> maintain our own branch. And we can not use any extensions that reference
> grease classes. Then what happens if we really want an extension like that?
> We copy classes too?that would not make a lot of sense to me.
>
> So what do you think?

> Julian,
>
> The Grease-Core package contains a mixture of things (for convenience): the
> GR* family of classes using a naming convention that is unlikely to collide
> with platform classes and a collection of extensions to well-known classes
> using names that could very easily collide with platform methods (or prevent
> a platform from implementing that method in their base system).
>
> The well-known class extension methods could easily be moved to the
> platform-side, then as platforms adopt the Grease extensions (an obvious
> goal of Grease in the first place) the platform extensions can be adjusted
> accordingly...the Grease-Tests for those methods should remain so that from
> the Grease-Users perspective the behavior for those methods will remain
> consistent (relative to Grease) over time...
>
> It _would be convenient_ to preserve the current well-known class extension
> method implementations so that when Grease is ported to a new platform the
> "standard implementation" can be used as a bootstrap. In fact if the
> well-known class extension methods were moved into a separate platform
> package, then you'd have the gold standard implementation and the initial
> pharo/squeak implementation rolled into one.
>
> In the end this doesn't sound that awful...
>
> Dale
>
> Julian Fitzell wrote:
>>
>> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>>
>>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>>
>>>
>>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>>> plattform, we can not
>>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>>
>> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
>> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
>> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
>> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
>> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
>> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools
>> in our version control systems...
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>> but do we want all grease?
>>
>
> Well. Not sure. Grease core is not that big. It has other useful stuff in. I was in part commenting on the philosophy markus was referring to. I have a different point of view.   If we just copy the extensions we have to maintain our own branch. And we can not use any extensions that reference grease classes. Then what happens if we really want an extension like that? We copy classes too?that would not make a lot of sense to me.
>
> So what do you think?
> mike
>
>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> I'm missing something. Why do we need to adopt the (copy of) methods and not just adopt the package as lukas said? I thought we wanted core to get smaller over time and better modularised anyway? We would just need to track a stable version rather than maintaining our own branch. Surely it is worse to copy the methods renamed or not but put them in a pharo specific package?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers mike
>>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2010, at 14:14, Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>>>>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>>>>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>>>>> plattform, we can not
>>>>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>>>>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>>>>
>>>> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
>>>> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
>>>> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
>>>> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
>>>> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
>>>> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools
>>>> in our version control systems...
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Michael Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 Jun 2010, at 14:30, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> but do we want all grease?
>>>
>>
>> Well. Not sure. Grease core is not that big. It has other useful stuff in. I
>> was in part commenting on the philosophy markus was referring to. I have a
>> different point of view.   If we just copy the extensions we have to
>> maintain our own branch. And we can not use any extensions that reference
>> grease classes. Then what happens if we really want an extension like that?
>> We copy classes too?that would not make a lot of sense to me.
>>
>> So what do you think?
>
> Philosophically, Grease does not desire to provide implementation but
> tests of available functionality. The tests are common to all
> platforms and it is up to the platforms to ensure the tests pass. The
> ideal is that each platform simply provides the needed functionality
> (that's why we try to keep the size of Grease relatively small) and
> that in cases where they do not wish to do so they will provide a
> platform-specific Grease package that provides the functionality.
>
> The question here is regarding methods that we have provided in our
> Pharo-specific Grease package and whether some or all of them should
> be moved under Pharo's responsibility instead. As with all the other
> platforms, I encourage the adoption of Grease extensions that are
> considered generally useful and sane. Having these methods managed as
> part of the Pharo process means that the correct version will always
> be available in each Pharo release and that the methods are more
> widely available for use.
>
> It seems like the specific methods in question are currently in
> Grease-Core instead of Grease-Pharo-Core and I agree this is probably
> not ideal (I'll respond separately to Dale's email about this).
> Assuming they were in Grease-Pharo-Core, though, it would be a matter
> of *moving* them into Pharo, not *copying* them (with the added
> wrinkle of dealing with different Pharo versions, some of which have
> them and some of which do not).
>
> Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Hmm... Why did I only receive this email today...?
>
> Anyway, I agree that those methods should probably be in the
> platform-specific package. I guess we were originally trying to
> minimize the amount of implementation required on each platform. As
> long as no platform implements a method and the implementation is the
> same on all platforms, it is convenient to have it in only one place.
> As soon as a platform chooses to implement it, though, we will simply
> have to move it to the platform-specific package. At this point we run
> into the issue of having different platform packages for, say, Pharo
> 1.1 and 1.2.
>
> Perhaps in the end it is simpler just to keep extensions always in the
> platform packages and insist that the generic packages contain only
> GR* classes and grease* extension methods.
>
> I'm not sure about Grease providing reference implementations of all
> methods it tests, though. I'm not convinced that a "gold standard"
> always exists, nor that it will necessarily be implemented by Grease.
> In many cases, we have standardized on methods that already exist in
> Squeak/Pharo or in some other platform.
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Julian,
>>
>> The Grease-Core package contains a mixture of things (for convenience): the
>> GR* family of classes using a naming convention that is unlikely to collide
>> with platform classes and a collection of extensions to well-known classes
>> using names that could very easily collide with platform methods (or prevent
>> a platform from implementing that method in their base system).
>>
>> The well-known class extension methods could easily be moved to the
>> platform-side, then as platforms adopt the Grease extensions (an obvious
>> goal of Grease in the first place) the platform extensions can be adjusted
>> accordingly...the Grease-Tests for those methods should remain so that from
>> the Grease-Users perspective the behavior for those methods will remain
>> consistent (relative to Grease) over time...
>>
>> It _would be convenient_ to preserve the current well-known class extension
>> method implementations so that when Grease is ported to a new platform the
>> "standard implementation" can be used as a bootstrap. In fact if the
>> well-known class extension methods were moved into a separate platform
>> package, then you'd have the gold standard implementation and the initial
>> pharo/squeak implementation rolled into one.
>>
>> In the end this doesn't sound that awful...
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> Julian Fitzell wrote:
>>> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>:
>>>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods,
>>>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other
>>>> projects that depend on Grease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a
>>>> plattform, we can not
>>>> grow and improve our libraris anymore?
>>>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core?
>>> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods
>>> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our
>>> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease
>>> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort
>>> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so
>>> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools
>>> in our version control systems...
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project