Preference settings for 5.3 release
Locked
12
12
Preference settings for 5.3 release
 
|
We have a *lot* of preferences - in my view way too many - and there should be at least some discussion about the default values we provide for 5.3
tl;dr - Too many preferences, too badly organised. reduce, make decisions, simplify. I can't imagine I'll hit all of them here but let's try to get something done - Arithmetic Should we have these as preferences? How many people understand enough about Burnikel-Ziegler recursion splits to make it sensible to easily change? Compiler I claim we are long past the point where enabling block argument assignments or underscore assignment should be a default. Fix your damn code! Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder? Examples These are for the test suite and if possible should be hidden Files The one entry here relates to the encoding of stdio streams so maybe this category should be renamed? Graphics Both entries relate to sub-pixel font rendering, so again, rename? Morphic So. Many. Preferences. Surely at least the text edit related ones ought to be removed and kept to the 'editing' section? OLPC Really? TextDiff Could be better placed; in Tools? Tools 'Use unified message labels' What does this do? Is it worth allowing a choice for this sort of thing? browsing Aargh! More options than 31 flavour ice-cream stores! How many are actually of value? 'ignore style if only bold'? 'menu button in tool pane' - no actual senders, for example colors 'Use the new color picker' - is the new color pick not our pick for picking colors? If it still isn't the sensible choice more than 10 years later, maybe we should dump it completely. fileout are there ever good reasons to not have 24 hr timestamps? For not checking for slips? general Wow, still more flavours of ice-cream. 'Read only mode' - no senders. It's so old there is no timestamp. 'Use locale' is there any reason to ever not use it? .... and my brain melted at this point. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
A preference elimination initiative would be *very* welcome, but
it is something that we should start working on immediately after the 5.3 release. Preferences are like other bad habits: easy to get into, and hard to eliminate. So let's all make a New Year's resolution to lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier food, and get rid of unnecessary preferences in Squeak. For the current release, I think that we should limit discussion to specific default preference settings that we might want to change for the upcoming release. Dave On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:57:15PM -0800, tim Rowledge wrote: > We have a *lot* of preferences - in my view way too many - and there should be at least some discussion about the default values we provide for 5.3 > tl;dr - Too many preferences, too badly organised. reduce, make decisions, simplify. > > I can't imagine I'll hit all of them here but let's try to get something done - > > Arithmetic > Should we have these as preferences? How many people understand enough about Burnikel-Ziegler recursion splits to make it sensible to easily change? > > Compiler > I claim we are long past the point where enabling block argument assignments or underscore assignment should be a default. Fix your damn code! > Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder? > > Examples > These are for the test suite and if possible should be hidden > > Files > The one entry here relates to the encoding of stdio streams so maybe this category should be renamed? > > Graphics > Both entries relate to sub-pixel font rendering, so again, rename? > > Morphic > So. Many. Preferences. > Surely at least the text edit related ones ought to be removed and kept to the 'editing' section? > > OLPC > Really? > > TextDiff > Could be better placed; in Tools? > > Tools > 'Use unified message labels' What does this do? Is it worth allowing a choice for this sort of thing? > > browsing > Aargh! More options than 31 flavour ice-cream stores! How many are actually of value? > 'ignore style if only bold'? > 'menu button in tool pane' - no actual senders, for example > > colors > 'Use the new color picker' - is the new color pick not our pick for picking colors? If it still isn't the sensible choice more than 10 years later, maybe we should dump it completely. > > fileout > are there ever good reasons to not have 24 hr timestamps? For not checking for slips? > > general > Wow, still more flavours of ice-cream. > 'Read only mode' - no senders. It's so old there is no timestamp. > 'Use locale' is there any reason to ever not use it? > > .... and my brain melted at this point. > > > > tim > -- > tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim > Useful random insult:- Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. > > > |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
> On 2019-12-20, at 2:18 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > A preference elimination initiative would be *very* welcome, but > it is something that we should start working on immediately after > the 5.3 release. Exactly > > Preferences are like other bad habits: easy to get into, and > hard to eliminate. So let's all make a New Year's resolution to > lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier food, and get rid of > unnecessary preferences in Squeak. Ditto > > For the current release, I think that we should limit discussion > to specific default preference settings that we might want to > change for the upcoming release. The point I should have made in my tl;dr. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful Latin Phrases:- Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de cane debeo congredi = Excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
> On 20.12.2019, at 23:18, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > A preference elimination initiative would be *very* welcome, but > it is something that we should start working on immediately after > the 5.3 release. > > Preferences are like other bad habits: easy to get into, and > hard to eliminate. So let's all make a New Year's resolution to > lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier food, and get rid of > unnecessary preferences in Squeak. > > For the current release, I think that we should limit discussion > to specific default preference settings that we might want to > change for the upcoming release. > > Dave I really like the distinction in Firefox between "normal preferences" and "about:config" I think we should have that dichotomy, too. Something on the surface, something under the hood (eg, like OSXs 'defaults' facility) Best regards -Tobias |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
Hi all. Take a look at ReleaseBuilder class >> setPreferences Those will be used for the release at the moment. We do not track "default value" for pragma preferences at the moment. Best, Marcel
|
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Marcel Taeumel wrote:
> Hi all. > > Take a look at ReleaseBuilder class >> setPreferences > > Those will be used for the release at the moment. We do not track "default value" for pragma preferences at the moment. > > Best, > Marcel These default settings seem good to me, with the exception of: TextEditor autoEnclose: true. TextEditor autoIndent: true. I think that both of these should be false by default. Dave |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
> On 22.12.2019, at 17:17, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Marcel Taeumel wrote: >> Hi all. >> >> Take a look at ReleaseBuilder class >> setPreferences >> >> Those will be used for the release at the moment. We do not track "default value" for pragma preferences at the moment. >> >> Best, >> Marcel > > These default settings seem good to me, with the exception of: > > TextEditor autoEnclose: true. +1 > TextEditor autoIndent: true. ±0 -t > I think that both of these should be false by default. > > Dave > > |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
I think autoIndent is really practical when writing code in blocks or cascades, or otherwise indented text. Why do you feel that it should it be off by default? Am So., 22. Dez. 2019 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb David T. Lewis <[hidden email]>: These default settings seem good to me, with the exception of: |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
Apologies, I was confused regarding autoIndent, it is fine.
It is only the autoEnclose preference that causes problems in workspaces, so that is the only one that I think should be disabled out of the box. Sorry for the confusion. Dave On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Jakob Reschke wrote: > I think autoIndent is really practical when writing code in blocks or > cascades, or otherwise indented text. Why do you feel that it should it be > off by default? > > Am So., 22. Dez. 2019 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb David T. Lewis < > [hidden email]>: > > > These default settings seem good to me, with the exception of: > > > > TextEditor autoEnclose: true. > > TextEditor autoIndent: true. > > > > I think that both of these should be false by default. > > > > Dave > > > |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
I am totally 'pro' on reducing the number of preferences. But I ask you this: [1] Do not remove the preference to keep different windows in different colors. That is one of the most useful decision you can make IMHO. Why would you color the Browser, Workspace and Debugger in the same way? I understand that all grey may seems more a "professional/industrial" interface, but I guess we can leave that aim to Pharo and go on on our way. [2] "do not remove the possibility of having larger fonts". With high High-DPI Squeak would be unusable out of the Box. bye Nicola > On Dec 20, 2019, at 11:18 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > A preference elimination initiative would be *very* welcome, but > it is something that we should start working on immediately after > the 5.3 release. > > Preferences are like other bad habits: easy to get into, and > hard to eliminate. So let's all make a New Year's resolution to > lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier food, and get rid of > unnecessary preferences in Squeak. > > For the current release, I think that we should limit discussion > to specific default preference settings that we might want to > change for the upcoming release. > > Dave > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:57:15PM -0800, tim Rowledge wrote: >> We have a *lot* of preferences - in my view way too many - and there should be at least some discussion about the default values we provide for 5.3 >> tl;dr - Too many preferences, too badly organised. reduce, make decisions, simplify. >> >> I can't imagine I'll hit all of them here but let's try to get something done - >> >> Arithmetic >> Should we have these as preferences? How many people understand enough about Burnikel-Ziegler recursion splits to make it sensible to easily change? >> >> Compiler >> I claim we are long past the point where enabling block argument assignments or underscore assignment should be a default. Fix your damn code! >> Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder? >> >> Examples >> These are for the test suite and if possible should be hidden >> >> Files >> The one entry here relates to the encoding of stdio streams so maybe this category should be renamed? >> >> Graphics >> Both entries relate to sub-pixel font rendering, so again, rename? >> >> Morphic >> So. Many. Preferences. >> Surely at least the text edit related ones ought to be removed and kept to the 'editing' section? >> >> OLPC >> Really? >> >> TextDiff >> Could be better placed; in Tools? >> >> Tools >> 'Use unified message labels' What does this do? Is it worth allowing a choice for this sort of thing? >> >> browsing >> Aargh! More options than 31 flavour ice-cream stores! How many are actually of value? >> 'ignore style if only bold'? >> 'menu button in tool pane' - no actual senders, for example >> >> colors >> 'Use the new color picker' - is the new color pick not our pick for picking colors? If it still isn't the sensible choice more than 10 years later, maybe we should dump it completely. >> >> fileout >> are there ever good reasons to not have 24 hr timestamps? For not checking for slips? >> >> general >> Wow, still more flavours of ice-cream. >> 'Read only mode' - no senders. It's so old there is no timestamp. >> 'Use locale' is there any reason to ever not use it? >> >> .... and my brain melted at this point. >> >> >> >> tim >> -- >> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim >> Useful random insult:- Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. >> >> >> > |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
I am sure that both of those preferences will remain.
I also agree with your view of colorful windows, and I always turn this preference on in my image(s). But I recall that this was discussed for the 5.2 release, and we had feedback from new users who did not like the window coloring. For that reason, we should probably keep the preference turned off in the release image. But I am not a "new user" any more, so if there are any fresh opinions on the subject of colorful windows, please speak up :-) Dave On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:29:03AM +0100, Nicola Mingotti wrote: > > I am totally 'pro' on reducing the number of preferences. > > But I ask you this: > > [1] Do not remove the preference to keep different windows in different colors. That is one of the most useful decision you can make IMHO. Why would you color the Browser, Workspace and Debugger in the same way? > > I understand that all grey may seems more a "professional/industrial" interface, but I guess we can leave that aim to Pharo and go on on our way. > > [2] "do not remove the possibility of having larger fonts". > > With high High-DPI Squeak would be unusable out of the Box. > > bye > Nicola > > > > > > On Dec 20, 2019, at 11:18 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > A preference elimination initiative would be *very* welcome, but > > it is something that we should start working on immediately after > > the 5.3 release. > > > > Preferences are like other bad habits: easy to get into, and > > hard to eliminate. So let's all make a New Year's resolution to > > lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier food, and get rid of > > unnecessary preferences in Squeak. > > > > For the current release, I think that we should limit discussion > > to specific default preference settings that we might want to > > change for the upcoming release. > > > > Dave > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:57:15PM -0800, tim Rowledge wrote: > >> We have a *lot* of preferences - in my view way too many - and there should be at least some discussion about the default values we provide for 5.3 > >> tl;dr - Too many preferences, too badly organised. reduce, make decisions, simplify. > >> > >> I can't imagine I'll hit all of them here but let's try to get something done - > >> > >> Arithmetic > >> Should we have these as preferences? How many people understand enough about Burnikel-Ziegler recursion splits to make it sensible to easily change? > >> > >> Compiler > >> I claim we are long past the point where enabling block argument assignments or underscore assignment should be a default. Fix your damn code! > >> Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder? > >> > >> Examples > >> These are for the test suite and if possible should be hidden > >> > >> Files > >> The one entry here relates to the encoding of stdio streams so maybe this category should be renamed? > >> > >> Graphics > >> Both entries relate to sub-pixel font rendering, so again, rename? > >> > >> Morphic > >> So. Many. Preferences. > >> Surely at least the text edit related ones ought to be removed and kept to the 'editing' section? > >> > >> OLPC > >> Really? > >> > >> TextDiff > >> Could be better placed; in Tools? > >> > >> Tools > >> 'Use unified message labels' What does this do? Is it worth allowing a choice for this sort of thing? > >> > >> browsing > >> Aargh! More options than 31 flavour ice-cream stores! How many are actually of value? > >> 'ignore style if only bold'? > >> 'menu button in tool pane' - no actual senders, for example > >> > >> colors > >> 'Use the new color picker' - is the new color pick not our pick for picking colors? If it still isn't the sensible choice more than 10 years later, maybe we should dump it completely. > >> > >> fileout > >> are there ever good reasons to not have 24 hr timestamps? For not checking for slips? > >> > >> general > >> Wow, still more flavours of ice-cream. > >> 'Read only mode' - no senders. It's so old there is no timestamp. > >> 'Use locale' is there any reason to ever not use it? > >> > >> .... and my brain melted at this point. > >> > >> > >> > >> tim > >> -- > >> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim > >> Useful random insult:- Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. > >> > >> > >> > > > > |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
Hi David, After 6 months of Squeak I would say I am a seasoned beginner. I started with the grey, but in some videos I probably saw it was possible to color the windows and promptly I did it. It is definitely clearer, it lets you jump faster and doubtless between Transcript-Workspace-Browser(s)-Debugger. Also, with colors, it is easier to distinguish Squeak world from the rest of your OS. Squeak development is shocking for the mind of the experienced programmer, in many ways. Colorful windows is one of these way. In unix we have only two colors, one is for the "active / with-cursor" window the other is for all the inactive windows. More or less is the same for macOS and Windows. But Squeak is an OS more than a programming language so I guess it should be not bound to these conventions. It is not matter of urgency. But, I would vote definitely to keep colored windows by default. If you are a beginner you will be shocked. Let it be, this is not Emacs+Python or Vim+C or AndroidStudio. It is something completely different and you should be shocked right at the beginning ;) Opinion of total beginners (so, partially also mine) should be weighted less, because they do not know what is coming. Like opinion of students, let them choose democratically and Calculus would be deleted from any curriculum. :P bye nicola > On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:59 AM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I am sure that both of those preferences will remain. > > I also agree with your view of colorful windows, and I always turn > this preference on in my image(s). But I recall that this was discussed > for the 5.2 release, and we had feedback from new users who did > not like the window coloring. For that reason, we should probably > keep the preference turned off in the release image. > > But I am not a "new user" any more, so if there are any fresh opinions > on the subject of colorful windows, please speak up :-) > > Dave > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:29:03AM +0100, Nicola Mingotti wrote: >> >> I am totally 'pro' on reducing the number of preferences. >> >> But I ask you this: >> >> [1] Do not remove the preference to keep different windows in different colors. That is one of the most useful decision you can make IMHO. Why would you color the Browser, Workspace and Debugger in the same way? >> >> I understand that all grey may seems more a "professional/industrial" interface, but I guess we can leave that aim to Pharo and go on on our way. >> >> [2] "do not remove the possibility of having larger fonts". >> >> With high High-DPI Squeak would be unusable out of the Box. >> >> bye >> Nicola >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 20, 2019, at 11:18 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> A preference elimination initiative would be *very* welcome, but >>> it is something that we should start working on immediately after >>> the 5.3 release. >>> >>> Preferences are like other bad habits: easy to get into, and >>> hard to eliminate. So let's all make a New Year's resolution to >>> lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier food, and get rid of >>> unnecessary preferences in Squeak. >>> >>> For the current release, I think that we should limit discussion >>> to specific default preference settings that we might want to >>> change for the upcoming release. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:57:15PM -0800, tim Rowledge wrote: >>>> We have a *lot* of preferences - in my view way too many - and there should be at least some discussion about the default values we provide for 5.3 >>>> tl;dr - Too many preferences, too badly organised. reduce, make decisions, simplify. >>>> >>>> I can't imagine I'll hit all of them here but let's try to get something done - >>>> >>>> Arithmetic >>>> Should we have these as preferences? How many people understand enough about Burnikel-Ziegler recursion splits to make it sensible to easily change? >>>> >>>> Compiler >>>> I claim we are long past the point where enabling block argument assignments or underscore assignment should be a default. Fix your damn code! >>>> Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder? >>>> >>>> Examples >>>> These are for the test suite and if possible should be hidden >>>> >>>> Files >>>> The one entry here relates to the encoding of stdio streams so maybe this category should be renamed? >>>> >>>> Graphics >>>> Both entries relate to sub-pixel font rendering, so again, rename? >>>> >>>> Morphic >>>> So. Many. Preferences. >>>> Surely at least the text edit related ones ought to be removed and kept to the 'editing' section? >>>> >>>> OLPC >>>> Really? >>>> >>>> TextDiff >>>> Could be better placed; in Tools? >>>> >>>> Tools >>>> 'Use unified message labels' What does this do? Is it worth allowing a choice for this sort of thing? >>>> >>>> browsing >>>> Aargh! More options than 31 flavour ice-cream stores! How many are actually of value? >>>> 'ignore style if only bold'? >>>> 'menu button in tool pane' - no actual senders, for example >>>> >>>> colors >>>> 'Use the new color picker' - is the new color pick not our pick for picking colors? If it still isn't the sensible choice more than 10 years later, maybe we should dump it completely. >>>> >>>> fileout >>>> are there ever good reasons to not have 24 hr timestamps? For not checking for slips? >>>> >>>> general >>>> Wow, still more flavours of ice-cream. >>>> 'Read only mode' - no senders. It's so old there is no timestamp. >>>> 'Use locale' is there any reason to ever not use it? >>>> >>>> .... and my brain melted at this point. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> tim >>>> -- >>>> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim >>>> Useful random insult:- Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
In reply to this post by timrowledge
Hi Tim, Hi All, On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:57 PM tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote: We have a *lot* of preferences - in my view way too many - and there should be at least some discussion about the default values we provide for 5.3 I agree. We need the preferences to be able to load old code, but the preferences should be off by default. Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder? My call wi=ould be to move to SistaV1 , but others are understandably more cautious. Examples +1. general _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicola Mingotti
Hi Nicola, On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:27 PM Nicola Mingotti <[hidden email]> wrote:
<3
Forgive me for encouraging you to proselytize on e.g. Quora. Do you have a blog? I'd love to read your impressions and criticisms.
_,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
I am flattered, really:) At the moment I am putting some effort in the Video medium. I think it is extremely important to get people to try Squeak, they must see it in action. It is very very difficult to explain in textual form what it can do and why it is different. It is difficult for the reader to get the idea. (it was very difficult for me, and I am very much trained in learning by the book) When I produce something new I publish it in Linkedin. I usually copy the link also in Reddit "smalltalk" channel. I try to keep updated also the Swiki. If you have other suggestion of where to publish/link things or share points of view let me know. I will try to be there as well. bye Nicola
|
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
Hi all,
just my two cents :)
> Compiler
> I claim we are long past the point where enabling block argument assignments or underscore assignment should be a default. Fix your damn code!
> Are we sticking with the EncoderForV3PlusClosures encoder?
IIRC someone explained recently that disabling this preference would make it impossible to load old code? I would not like to make this unnecessary restriction.
Instead, I would suggest - provided that the following is implementable - to raise a special kind of warning if deprecated syntax is used. Users can then decide to suppress or not suppress these warnings. During loading old code, we can catch and ignore them.
(And yes, we sometimes should work at improving/exchanging the UI of warnings).
> 'ignore
style if only bold'?
Didn't we talk about this recently? It is related to storing all TextAttributes into a compiled method. See
here. According to Tobias, it sounds like something that has developed historically, so I proposed to deprecate it.
But yes, loosely related to browsing, I guess.
> 'Use the
new color picker' - is the new color pick not our pick for picking colors? If it still isn't the sensible choice more than 10 years later, maybe we should dump it completely.
There still might be one feature which the classical color pick does have, but the new one is missing: Really "picking" a color from any pixel of the screen. Maybe we should add this feature. Or am I missing something?
Merry Christmas,
Christoph
Von: Squeak-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Nicola Mingotti <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Montag, 23. Dezember 2019 10:56:36 An: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] Preference settings for 5.3 release
I am flattered, really:)
At the moment I am putting some effort in the Video medium. I think it is extremely important to get people to try Squeak, they must see it in action. It is very very difficult to explain in textual form what it can do and why it is different. It is difficult
for the reader to get the idea. (it was very difficult for me, and I am very much trained in learning by the book)
When I produce something new I publish it in Linkedin.
I usually copy the link also in Reddit "smalltalk" channel.
I try to keep updated also the Swiki.
If you have other suggestion of where to publish/link things or share points of view let me know. I will try to be there as well.
bye
Nicola
Carpe Squeak!
|
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
Hi all,
This is my main use of the colour picker. Colouring related windows (usually inspectors but also implemetors) in the same colour. Cheers, Herbert |
Re: Preference settings for 5.3 release
|
|
In reply to this post by Christoph Thiede
Hi Christophe, On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM Thiede, Christoph <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think that they;'re wrong :-) Let me explain why. The Cog VM supports up to two bytecode sets, selected by the sign bit of the method header. If the sign bit is not set the "primary" bytecode set is selected, and if set the "secondary" bytecode set is selected. Both the primary and secondary bytecode sets are "installed" by setting a couple of class variables in CompiledCode, one for the PrimaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass and one for the SecondaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass. Which bytyecode set is the preferred one is selected by yet another class variable, PreferredBytecodeSetEncoderClass. By default these variables have these values (they have these values ion trunk currently) PreferredBytecodeSetEncoderClass nil PrimaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass EncoderForV3PlusClosures SecondaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass EncoderForV3PlusClosures What setting the preferred bytecode selector set to SistaV1 does is to set these variables to these values: PreferredBytecodeSetEncoderClass EncoderForSistaV1 PrimaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass EncoderForV3PlusClosures SecondaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass EncoderForSistaV1 So what it *does not do* is change the meaning of the bit in the method header. A non-negative method header still means the method uses the old bytecode set. So old code continues to load. It is entirely unaffected. What it does mean is that any methods that are compiled (that are not quick methods (*)) are compiled using the new bytecode set and will have negative method headers. So if you export them, e.g. via an ImageSegment, they will use the SistaV1 bytecode set in the receiving image whether it has the preference set or not. Further, the VM will happily run the new bytecode set because for a whole now the VM has had the two bytecode sets compiled in in this way. What will happen ion the image that doesn't have the SecondaryBytecodeSetEncoderClass set to EncoderForSistaV1 is that the debugger, etc, will get confused because they will interpret the new byetcodes using the old encodings. (*) quick methods don't have bytecodes, just a primitive number. So these methods keep being expressed in the old bytecode set because I've been too lazy to rewrite quick method generation to respect the PreferredBytecodeSetEncoderClass, because for the moment it makes no difference. Does this make sense or am I being too detailed and confusing? Executive summary, the design was careful to *not* invalidate the old bytecode set, to make using the new bytecode set an option that does not break backwards compatibility. In future if we want to jettison the old bytecode set and design a third set, that's when we introduce backwards com potability issues, and we introduce the need to express quick methods using the SistaV1 bytecode set. But for the moment we're safe.
_,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot |
autoEnclose preference (was: Preference settings for 5.3 release)
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
It is only the autoEnclose preference that causes problems in What "problems" are those? Just as you see in the subject-line of this email, for every open-parenthesis, there's a closing, as well as for every open bracket, a closing. That's the structure of these characters in every normal context. "Problems" arise when they get out of balance, which is why other editors have this feature too. IIRC, eclipse was doing it in 2005. IMO, it's a good thing for developers and users alike. +1 for autoEnclose being true by default in the release image. :) - Chris so that is the only one that I think should be |
Re: autoEnclose preference (was: Preference settings for 5.3 release)
|
|
> On 2019-12-23, at 7:41 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > > It is only the autoEnclose preference that causes problems in > workspaces, > > What "problems" are those? Just as you see in the subject-line of this email, for every open-parenthesis, there's a closing, as well as for every open bracket, a closing. That's the structure of these characters in every normal context. "Problems" arise when they get out of balance, which is why other editors have this feature too. IIRC, eclipse was doing it in 2005. > > IMO, it's a good thing for developers and users alike. Problem is that when you type a ( you get () - which is fine if you're about to type (fooble +2) but really irritating if you already have fooble + 2) and want to add the ( in front. Which seems to be something that happens frequently enough to me that the irritation level is very considerable. Now, the 'enclose selection with brackets' option is much less annoying *to me* - apart from anything else I got used to it decades ago. It's useful when editing, as opposed to 'streaming', code. Of course, it gets annoying if you wanted to replace the selection with (. Happily cmd-shift-( actually does a "wrap selection with ( and leave selection as-is" so it is possible to do both ways almost without any problem. With both the auto-enclose and enclose-selection disabled you can type (foo type foo, go back and add ( in front type foo, select it, wrap with cmd-( to get (foo) type cmd-(foo and get (foo) So *at worst* you'd have to hit cmd-( to get the () you want, and of course the preference is still there for you and any other people that are able to stream out code without having to stop and ponder after every (small prime number of) characters. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Computers are only human. |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |