The Trunk: Collections-edc.314.mcz

>
> Edgar J. De Cleene uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Trunk:
> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-edc.314.mcz
>
> ==================== Summary ====================
>
> Name: Collections-edc.314
> Author: edc
> Time: 24 February 2010, 7:46:05.588 am
> UUID: 74aa25e4-9646-4f83-9141-e72890b6cd4e
> Ancestors: Collections-ul.313
>
> Added String-lastPositionOf convenience method
>
> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.313 ===============
>
> Item was added:
> + ----- Method: String>>lastPositionOf: (in category 'testing') -----
> + lastPositionOf: aChar
> + "Answer the character position of the final space or other separator character in the receiver, and 0 if none"
> + self size to: 1 by: -1 do:
> + [:i | ((self at: i)= aChar) ifTrue: [^ i]].
> + ^ 0
> +
> + "
> + 'fred the bear' lastSpacePosition
> + 'ziggie' lastSpacePosition
> + 'elvis ' lastSpacePosition
> + 'wimpy  ' lastSpacePosition
> + '' lastSpacePosition
> + "!
>
>

>
>
>
> On 2/24/10 8:47 AM, "Bert Freudenberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Huh? What's wrong with #lastIndexOf:?
>>
>> - Bert -
> Nothing
> Sure I don't know when need and reinvent the wheel
>
> Just I wish you have the same critic with all going to trunk...
>

> Fell free to rip and change lastPositionOf: for lastIndexOf: so all happy
>
> The point is you now could do
>
> |loader |
>    loader _ CodeLoader new.
>    loader baseURL: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Ladrillos/'.
>    loader loadSourceFiles: #('Scamper-edc.13.mcz' );installSourceFiles.
>
> Or many of examples coming from
>
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6056

>
>
>
>
> On 2/24/10 1:10 PM, "Levente Uzonyi" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I doubt that other code gets less critic.
>> If you're unsure that your code is generally useful or it may break some
>> stuff, just upload it to the Inbox and write a mail here about the
>> changes your code does. You can even add an Installer script to your mail,
>> so others can load the packages easily.
> I send ,no feedback
>
>> Installer is a better tool to load these IMHO.
>>
>>
>> Levente
>
>
> But Installer  and all the others loader should be unloaded with Smalltalk
> unloadAllKnownPackages.
>
> Smalltalk unloadAllKnownPackages. Should be the first we do for having the
> next .image (SL3, 4.1, Mendieta)

>
>
>
> On 2/24/10 1:10 PM, "Levente Uzonyi" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I doubt that other code gets less critic.
>> If you're unsure that your code is generally useful or it may break some
>> stuff, just upload it to the Inbox and write a mail here about the
>> changes your code does. You can even add an Installer script to your mail,
>> so others can load the packages easily.
> I send ,no feedback
>
>> Installer is a better tool to load these IMHO.
>>
>>
>> Levente
>
>
> But Installer  and all the others loader should be unloaded with Smalltalk
> unloadAllKnownPackages.
>
> Smalltalk unloadAllKnownPackages. Should be the first we do for having the
> next .image (SL3, 4.1, Mendieta)
>
>
> You could load Installer if suits best your needs.
>
> I insist CodeLoader is useful and more clear as you put the repositories and
> exact versions.
>

> On 25.02.2010, at 10:52, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/10 1:10 PM, "Levente Uzonyi" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that other code gets less critic.
>>> If you're unsure that your code is generally useful or it may break some
>>> stuff, just upload it to the Inbox and write a mail here about the
>>> changes your code does. You can even add an Installer script to your mail,
>>> so others can load the packages easily.
>> I send ,no feedback
>>
>>> Installer is a better tool to load these IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>
>>
>> But Installer  and all the others loader should be unloaded with Smalltalk
>> unloadAllKnownPackages.
>>
>> Smalltalk unloadAllKnownPackages. Should be the first we do for having the
>> next .image (SL3, 4.1, Mendieta)
>
> I'd think that any non-core image should have Installer. And a core image should not have CodeLoader either.
>
>> You could load Installer if suits best your needs.
>>
>> I insist CodeLoader is useful and more clear as you put the repositories and
>> exact versions.
>
> But you are aware that CodeLoader was created for a very different purpose, right? It's not supposed to load code for development. It's used to load code at runtime in user applications. Signature verification and security sandboxing is one of the major responsibilities of CodeLoader, as is fetching the code from remote sources.
>
> Installer gained a lot of support lately. It's what we commonly use for loading development stuff now. Why would you insist on differing? In Installer you can give exact repositories and versions, too.
>
> I'd rather remove your CodeLoader extensions. If others wanted them to stay, then we would at least have to change it to not bypass the security checks.
>
> Levente already stated he preferred Installer. So with me that's 2:1 against extending CodeLoader. Any other opinions either way?
>

>>> I'd think that any non-core image should have Installer. And a core
>>> image should not have CodeLoader either.
>>>
>>>> You could load Installer if suits best your needs.
>
>
> I think it would help to clarify nomenclature (again)...
>
> kernel
> core
> build
> basic
> developer / fun
> web / full
> max
>
> The kernel image would be the image with an absolute minimum, except I
> would argue the ability to specify a single local script on the
> command line, &/ a REPL to the console. The kernel would not even be
> expected to have a UI, and it does not have to be usable, apart from
> running command line scripts, or something.

> A build image is one that has a selection of tools for building bigger
> images, so might have one or more of SqueakMap, Universes, MC, Gofer
> Metacello etc.
>
> A basic image would be the standard release. I.e. a selection of tools
> chosen and loaded out of the menu of available options. i.e. pick the
> Transcript implementation, Browsers etc.
>
> Developer/web/seaside/magma derived images for different purposes,
> either based on "basic", with the standard tools, or "build" with non-
> standard tools
>
> full/fun - the old style everything interesting demo as we had with
> 3.7-full
>
> max - every package that can load loaded.
>
> regards
>
> Keith