I would love to have better halt messages.
For example I would like to have - haltOnlyInTest - haltOnlyOutOfTest - haltOnlyMe that when I use this one disables all the other halt in the system. Marcus it would be nice to brainstorm on these to improve our halt vocabulary. Stef |
Also why was haltIfShiftPressed removed? (in favor of haltIf: [ Sensor shiftPressed ], which is harder to write, remember, and without autocompletion).
Peter On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:39AM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > I would love to have better halt messages. > > For example I would like to have > > - haltOnlyInTest > - haltOnlyOutOfTest > - haltOnlyMe that when I use this one disables all the other halt in the > system. > > Marcus it would be nice to brainstorm on these to improve our halt > vocabulary. > Stef |
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
Hi With process specific variable CurrentExecutionEnvironment it should be very easy to implement. Halt will be delegated to DefaultExecutionEnvironment or TestExecutionEnvironment depending on current value. |
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
2017-06-02 8:52 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
Another question: do we really want new halt messages or it is better to extend breakpoints based on metalinks? |
I would go for metalinks. Esteban |
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
2017-06-02 9:26 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]>:
And you are able to do it right now with following scripts: - haltOnlyInTest self haltIf: [ CurrentExecutionEnvironment value isKindOf: TestExecutionEnvironment] - haltOnlyOutOfTest self haltIf: [ CurrentExecutionEnvironment value isKindOf: DefaultExecutionEnvironment] |
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
We will added back because it is nice indeed. On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote: Also why was haltIfShiftPressed removed? (in favor of haltIf: [ Sensor shiftPressed ], which is harder to write, remember, and without autocompletion). |
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
I would go for simplicity. If we have a simple way to build then no need for metalink machinery On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
Excellent! We should add them to the system. On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
To mirror the existing API, what do you think of:
- haltOnlyInTest -> #haltIfTest - haltOnlyOutOfTest -> #haltIfNotTest - haltOnlyMe -> #haltOnly
Cheers,
Sean |
2017-06-03 15:21 GMT+02:00 Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]>:
good names. We need right english overview :) |
Sounds like a good idea, but please implement them as constructors/class side methods in Halt instead of adding even more methods to Object.
"self haltIfTest -> Halt ifTest"
Best regards, Henrik Fra: Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> på vegne av Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]>
Sendt: 3. juni 2017 21:30:37 Til: Pharo Development List Emne: Re: [Pharo-dev] New and richer halt messages 2017-06-03 15:21 GMT+02:00 Sean P. DeNigris
<[hidden email]>:
good names. We need right english overview :) |
Administrator
|
You're speaking my language! When Stephan Eggermont and I paired at ESUG creating the Halt API, we wanted to remove all the Object methods, but we were advised not to scare the users too much ha ha. Maybe the time has finally come?!
Cheers,
Sean |
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 02:46:30PM -0700, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
> Henrik-Nergaard wrote > > Sounds like a good idea, but please implement them as constructors/class > > side methods in Halt instead of adding even more methods to Object. > > You're speaking my language! When Stephan Eggermont and I paired at ESUG > creating the Halt API, we wanted to remove all the Object methods, but we > were advised not to scare the users too much ha ha. Maybe the time has > finally come?! But then I wouldn't be able to write 1halt. :( Peter |
2017-06-04 6:40 GMT-03:00 Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]>:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 02:46:30PM -0700, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: >> Henrik-Nergaard wrote >> > Sounds like a good idea, but please implement them as constructors/class >> > side methods in Halt instead of adding even more methods to Object. >> >> You're speaking my language! When Stephan Eggermont and I paired at ESUG >> creating the Halt API, we wanted to remove all the Object methods, but we >> were advised not to scare the users too much ha ha. Maybe the time has >> finally come?! > > But then I wouldn't be able to write 1halt. :( I'd only leave #halt in Object, anything else goes to Halt class. I became a user of "1 halt" as well. Esteban A. Maringolo |
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
Le 04/06/2017 à 11:40, Peter Uhnak a écrit :
> But then I wouldn't be able to write 1halt. :( > > Peter > You can still add some startup script :) I have one compiling a "h" method in object calling halt to be able to write "1h" :) -- Cyril Ferlicot https://ferlicot.fr http://www.synectique.eu 2 rue Jacques Prévert 01, 59650 Villeneuve d'ascq France signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment |
What we should consider is that well packaged methods can be in Object. The problem is when method in Object are used everywhere and that they have nothing to do there. About Halt only does not convey anything to me. Halt onlyMe means clearly what is it For the Halt ifTest Halt ifNotTest Why not. But I would prefer to be really clear. I would prefer Halt ifInsideTest Halt ifOutsideTest Because we are not about a couple of characters. Stef On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Cyril Ferlicot D. <[hidden email]> wrote: Le 04/06/2017 à 11:40, Peter Uhnak a écrit : |
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
To me it seems strange/awkward that code in one method will change global debugging state, and it would feel better via direct UI action to add a metalink (IIUC how that would work.) Plus also a global GUI tool to manage breakpoints/metalinks would be good.
These sound good. cheers -ben
|
To me it seems strange/awkward that code in one method will change global debugging state, and it would feel better via direct UI action to add a metalink (IIUC how that would work.) Plus also a global GUI tool to manage breakpoints/metalinks would be good. Yes but when you need you need it. Else what is the alternative: - remove all the halt during the execution. - execute yours - put back the halt if something wrong happens. or - create manually a global. - rewrite all your halt to depend on this global - turn on and off the global to get the desired effects... Tedious, cumbersome and boring. We can do better. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
or hypothetically something like... right-click code and menu select "break here, disable others" cheers -ben
|
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |