The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
Locked
 
|
Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox:
http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz ==================== Summary ==================== Name: Collections-fbs.516 Author: fbs Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== Item was changed: ----- Method: Association>>printOn: (in category 'printing') ----- printOn: aStream super printOn: aStream. + "If the key is a binary selector and we don't use whitespace, we will stream (key, '->') asSymbol." + aStream nextPutAll: ' -> '. - aStream nextPutAll: '->'. value printOn: aStream! Item was changed: ----- Method: Association>>storeOn: (in category 'printing') ----- storeOn: aStream "Store in the format (key->value)" aStream nextPut: $(. key storeOn: aStream. + "If key is a binary selector and we don't use whitespace, we will stream (key, '->') asSymbol." + aStream nextPutAll: ' -> '. - aStream nextPutAll: '->'. value storeOn: aStream. aStream nextPut: $)! |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox: > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz > > ==================== Summary ==================== > > Name: Collections-fbs.516 > Author: fbs > Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm > UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 > Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 > > Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. > > =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll understand if you demand these!) frank |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what
the change, since what would be redundant with the code. But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors. Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print. I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their printString output. Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion, I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look, before trunking it. (A new verbification for you Tim!). On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox: >> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz >> >> ==================== Summary ==================== >> >> Name: Collections-fbs.516 >> Author: fbs >> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm >> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 >> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 >> >> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. >> >> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== > > Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? > > (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll > understand if you demand these!) > > frank > |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
On 2 May 2013 19:15, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what > the change, since what would be redundant with the code. > > But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space > it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors. > Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print. > > I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of > Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their > printString output. Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion, > I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look, > before trunking it. (A new verbification for you Tim!). I'd be happy to get the compact form back: I hemmed and hawed over whether or not to do it, hence asking for, well, not _consensus_, but sanity. frank > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox: >>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz >>> >>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>> >>> Name: Collections-fbs.516 >>> Author: fbs >>> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm >>> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 >>> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 >>> >>> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. >>> >>> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== >> >> Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? >> >> (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll >> understand if you demand these!) >> >> frank >> > |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
On 2 May 2013 19:48, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2 May 2013 19:15, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what >> the change, since what would be redundant with the code. >> >> But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space >> it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors. >> Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print. >> >> I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of >> Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their >> printString output. Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion, >> I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look, >> before trunking it. (A new verbification for you Tim!). > > I'd be happy to get the compact form back: I hemmed and hawed over > whether or not to do it, hence asking for, well, not _consensus_, but > sanity. As it happens, this commit breaks two tests. Chris, one possible way for getting the compact form back is to say something like storeOn: aStream | arrow | arrow := key isBinarySelector ifTrue: [' -> '] ifFalse: ['->']. key storeOn: aStream. aStream nextPutAll: arrow. value storeOn: aStream and similarly for #printOn:. I dislike the conditional; I'm not _certain_ that it's sufficient to cover all the cases, and conditionals are always ugly. frank > frank > >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox: >>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz >>>> >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>> >>>> Name: Collections-fbs.516 >>>> Author: fbs >>>> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm >>>> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 >>>> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 >>>> >>>> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. >>>> >>>> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== >>> >>> Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? >>> >>> (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll >>> understand if you demand these!) >>> >>> frank >>> >> |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
I'll just try what you have now over the next weeks and see how it
goes. We can always refine later. On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2 May 2013 19:48, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On 2 May 2013 19:15, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what >>> the change, since what would be redundant with the code. >>> >>> But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space >>> it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors. >>> Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print. >>> >>> I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of >>> Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their >>> printString output. Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion, >>> I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look, >>> before trunking it. (A new verbification for you Tim!). >> >> I'd be happy to get the compact form back: I hemmed and hawed over >> whether or not to do it, hence asking for, well, not _consensus_, but >> sanity. > > As it happens, this commit breaks two tests. Chris, one possible way > for getting the compact form back is to say something like > > storeOn: aStream > | arrow | > arrow := key isBinarySelector ifTrue: [' -> '] ifFalse: ['->']. > key storeOn: aStream. > aStream nextPutAll: arrow. > value storeOn: aStream > > and similarly for #printOn:. > > I dislike the conditional; I'm not _certain_ that it's sufficient to > cover all the cases, and conditionals are always ugly. > > frank > >> frank >> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox: >>>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz >>>>> >>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>> >>>>> Name: Collections-fbs.516 >>>>> Author: fbs >>>>> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm >>>>> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 >>>>> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 >>>>> >>>>> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. >>>>> >>>>> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? >>>> >>>> (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll >>>> understand if you demand these!) >>>> >>>> frank >>>> >>> > |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
OK. As it turns out, it was pretty simple to special-case (see your
inbox), and this fixes some broken Traits tests. Because, well, I was there anyway. 5 minutes to do, you know? frank On 2 May 2013 21:05, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > I'll just try what you have now over the next weeks and see how it > goes. We can always refine later. > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On 2 May 2013 19:48, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> On 2 May 2013 19:15, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what >>>> the change, since what would be redundant with the code. >>>> >>>> But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space >>>> it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors. >>>> Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print. >>>> >>>> I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of >>>> Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their >>>> printString output. Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion, >>>> I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look, >>>> before trunking it. (A new verbification for you Tim!). >>> >>> I'd be happy to get the compact form back: I hemmed and hawed over >>> whether or not to do it, hence asking for, well, not _consensus_, but >>> sanity. >> >> As it happens, this commit breaks two tests. Chris, one possible way >> for getting the compact form back is to say something like >> >> storeOn: aStream >> | arrow | >> arrow := key isBinarySelector ifTrue: [' -> '] ifFalse: ['->']. >> key storeOn: aStream. >> aStream nextPutAll: arrow. >> value storeOn: aStream >> >> and similarly for #printOn:. >> >> I dislike the conditional; I'm not _certain_ that it's sufficient to >> cover all the cases, and conditionals are always ugly. >> >> frank >> >>> frank >>> >>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Inbox: >>>>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz >>>>>> >>>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>>> >>>>>> Name: Collections-fbs.516 >>>>>> Author: fbs >>>>>> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm >>>>>> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 >>>>>> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 >>>>>> >>>>>> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. >>>>>> >>>>>> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== >>>>> >>>>> Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? >>>>> >>>>> (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll >>>>> understand if you demand these!) >>>>> >>>>> frank >>>>> >>>> >> > |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
Anyway you can't cover much, storeString is very very limited to a few core objects. Even for the most simple objetcs, precedence is broken, just try 1->(1->2).For Pharo, I made a utility based on generating AST and then printing it, which work a bit further for simple objects. See SLICE-Issue-4943--Implement-printSelfEvaluating-with-AST-nice.3.mcz 2013/5/2 Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
|
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
On 2 May 2013 21:18, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyway you can't cover much, storeString is very very limited to a few core > objects. > Even for the most simple objetcs, precedence is broken, just try 1->(1->2). > For Pharo, I made a utility based on generating AST and then printing it, > which work a bit further for simple objects. > > See SLICE-Issue-4943--Implement-printSelfEvaluating-with-AST-nice.3.mcz Agreed: the _proper_ solution is to work with ASTs. For the purpose of fixing the Trait issue, only the #printOn: part is vital. Excuse me while I boggle once again at that idea. frank > In http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/PharoTreatedInbox.html > 2013/5/2 Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> >> >> On 2 May 2013 19:48, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > On 2 May 2013 19:15, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I like how your comment describes _why_ the change rather than what >> >> the change, since what would be redundant with the code. >> >> >> >> But it also gave me an idea -- whether it would be good to only space >> >> it out if it must; e.g., if key and/or value are binary selectors. >> >> Otherwise, maintian the traditional compact print. >> >> >> >> I have an app that makes heavy use of user-specified Arrays of >> >> Associations for parameterizing objects, which may be using their >> >> printString output. Unless you'd like to take the above suggestion, >> >> I'd like to run with this for a couple of weeks, see how things look, >> >> before trunking it. (A new verbification for you Tim!). >> > >> > I'd be happy to get the compact form back: I hemmed and hawed over >> > whether or not to do it, hence asking for, well, not _consensus_, but >> > sanity. >> >> As it happens, this commit breaks two tests. Chris, one possible way >> for getting the compact form back is to say something like >> >> storeOn: aStream >> | arrow | >> arrow := key isBinarySelector ifTrue: [' -> '] ifFalse: ['->']. >> key storeOn: aStream. >> aStream nextPutAll: arrow. >> value storeOn: aStream >> >> and similarly for #printOn:. >> >> I dislike the conditional; I'm not _certain_ that it's sufficient to >> cover all the cases, and conditionals are always ugly. >> >> frank >> >> > frank >> > >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1 May 2013 22:14, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>> Frank Shearar uploaded a new version of Collections to project The >> >>>> Inbox: >> >>>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-fbs.516.mcz >> >>>> >> >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >> >>>> >> >>>> Name: Collections-fbs.516 >> >>>> Author: fbs >> >>>> Time: 1 May 2013, 10:14:23.588 pm >> >>>> UUID: e787006a-d096-47f3-93da-c4681285fae2 >> >>>> Ancestors: Collections-ul.515 >> >>>> >> >>>> Surrounding the -> in an Assocation in printed form allows the left >> >>>> side to be a binary selector without things breaking: #* -> #+ otherwise >> >>>> prints as '#*->#+', which is the Symbol #*-> followed by garbage. >> >>>> >> >>>> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.515 =============== >> >>> >> >>> Just to be clear, you're +1'ing this change, Nicolas? >> >>> >> >>> (I didn't add tests for the Association >> #printString; I'll >> >>> understand if you demand these!) >> >>> >> >>> frank >> >>> >> >> >> > > > > |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-fbs.516.mcz
|
|
Yes, what I mean is that we can live with simple hacks and don't need to worrry whether it can be generalized or not, because we already know the answer, it cannot in current form 2013/5/2 Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>
|
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |