Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?

> On 17 August 2012 22:21, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>>>
>>> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of NativeBoost,
>>> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile to C
>>> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
>>
>> But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost? Wouldn't
>> that be Cog/JIT?
>>
> Right. It is native. You can talk directly to metal. No layers on
> top.. you are the in total control.
> This is the main motivation behind a project.
> You can build abstractions on top of it, of course. And of course you
> can make it portable across
> as many platforms as you need.. It may be hard but it is doable.
> But conceptually one thing are not gonna change: you have direct
> access to machine code,
> which means no compiler standing in your way, which generating
> suboptimal code :)
> And for some cases it is simply impossible to implement things in C
> without heavy sacrifices in speed..
> consider arithmetic overflow - in CPU's you have a flag which indicates that..
> but in C there is no way how you can access it.. so you cannot just write:
>
> int a, b;
> if ( (result = a +b) > maxInt )
> {
>   .. switch to big integer arithmetic ..
> }
>
> and i guess you can find many other cases where direct machine code is
> more preferable than produced by compiler(s).
>
>

> On 12-08-19 6:26 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 17 August 2012 22:21, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of NativeBoost,
>>>> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile to C
>>>> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost?
>>> Wouldn't
>>> that be Cog/JIT?
>>>
>> Right. It is native. You can talk directly to metal. No layers on
>> top.. you are the in total control.
>> This is the main motivation behind a project.
>> You can build abstractions on top of it, of course. And of course you
>> can make it portable across
>> as many platforms as you need.. It may be hard but it is doable.
>> But conceptually one thing are not gonna change: you have direct
>> access to machine code,
>> which means no compiler standing in your way, which generating
>> suboptimal code :)
>> And for some cases it is simply impossible to implement things in C
>> without heavy sacrifices in speed..
>> consider arithmetic overflow - in CPU's you have a flag which indicates
>> that..
>> but in C there is no way how you can access it.. so you cannot just write:
>>
>> int a, b;
>> if ( (result = a +b) > maxInt )
>> {
>>   .. switch to big integer arithmetic ..
>> }
>>
>> and i guess you can find many other cases where direct machine code is
>> more preferable than produced by compiler(s).
>>
>>
> In the last few posts you just wrote as many words arguing for NativeBoost
> as David did explaining how to get started writing a plugin. Except when he
> was done a person could actually start to write a plugin. If you and Lawson
> spent as much time providing examples for NativeBoost as you do extolling
> its virtues, I could actually try it for myself.
>

> On 20 August 2012 00:53, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 12-08-19 6:26 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>> On 17 August 2012 22:21, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of NativeBoost,
>>>>> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile to C
>>>>> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
>>>>
>>>> But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost?
>>>> Wouldn't
>>>> that be Cog/JIT?
>>>>
>>> Right. It is native. You can talk directly to metal. No layers on
>>> top.. you are the in total control.
>>> This is the main motivation behind a project.
>>> You can build abstractions on top of it, of course. And of course you
>>> can make it portable across
>>> as many platforms as you need.. It may be hard but it is doable.
>>> But conceptually one thing are not gonna change: you have direct
>>> access to machine code,
>>> which means no compiler standing in your way, which generating
>>> suboptimal code :)
>>> And for some cases it is simply impossible to implement things in C
>>> without heavy sacrifices in speed..
>>> consider arithmetic overflow - in CPU's you have a flag which indicates
>>> that..
>>> but in C there is no way how you can access it.. so you cannot just write:
>>>
>>> int a, b;
>>> if ( (result = a +b) > maxInt )
>>> {
>>>    .. switch to big integer arithmetic ..
>>> }
>>>
>>> and i guess you can find many other cases where direct machine code is
>>> more preferable than produced by compiler(s).
>>>
>>>
>> In the last few posts you just wrote as many words arguing for NativeBoost
>> as David did explaining how to get started writing a plugin. Except when he
>> was done a person could actually start to write a plugin. If you and Lawson
>> spent as much time providing examples for NativeBoost as you do extolling
>> its virtues, I could actually try it for myself.
>>
> Chris, its unfair.

> WOW I only left for a day and the mailing list just exploded.
>
> First I thank you all for your help and yes I am a big fan of Starship
> Troopers too, its sad that this greaty movie never got the sequel it
> deserved and still is so misunderstood.. The truth is that Native boost is
> very tempting for that precise reason, it allows you to stay in smalltalk
> and do your magic and never leave the comforts of the smalltalk debugger but
> is also tool that overall documentation is not much. Still I guess I can
> alway ask Igor and he can answer back and even contribute myself in
> documenting things. Whats funny is that if you ask here at mailing list you
> get a lot of useful answer but those answers dont make it back to
> documentaion. People are bored making documentation but cant resist
> answering in malling list with often extremely detailed helpful info as
> Davind's pst which I think should be included with Squeaks onboard
> documentation.
>
> Saying that taking into considerina how non popular Squeak and Pharo are ,
> documentation is not that bad actually.
>
> On my project goals Ephestos, is to take advantage of pure object orientated
> approach of smalltalk nature to provide a framework of attaching flexible
> documentation to smalltalk objects so the user can ask a method or class or
> any object  "help" (ie UIManager help  . UIManager default ChooseDirectory
> help. etc)
>
> Anyway after Igor's explanation I am certainly more inclined to use
> Nativeboost but will certainly would like to test Vm plugin creation. I
> certainly hope Nativeboost gets included with both Squeak and Pharo. If its
> really stable and reliable as Igor is claiming then I most certainly would
> like to help documenting it in time when I get more experience with it.
>
> I did find great introduction to Nativeboost this presentation ->
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd6mz6F167s which is what introduced me to
> nativeboost.
>
>
>

> On 12-08-19 9:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 20 August 2012 00:53, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12-08-19 6:26 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17 August 2012 22:21, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of NativeBoost,
>>>>>> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile to
>>>>>> C
>>>>>> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost?
>>>>> Wouldn't
>>>>> that be Cog/JIT?
>>>>>
>>>> Right. It is native. You can talk directly to metal. No layers on
>>>> top.. you are the in total control.
>>>> This is the main motivation behind a project.
>>>> You can build abstractions on top of it, of course. And of course you
>>>> can make it portable across
>>>> as many platforms as you need.. It may be hard but it is doable.
>>>> But conceptually one thing are not gonna change: you have direct
>>>> access to machine code,
>>>> which means no compiler standing in your way, which generating
>>>> suboptimal code :)
>>>> And for some cases it is simply impossible to implement things in C
>>>> without heavy sacrifices in speed..
>>>> consider arithmetic overflow - in CPU's you have a flag which indicates
>>>> that..
>>>> but in C there is no way how you can access it.. so you cannot just
>>>> write:
>>>>
>>>> int a, b;
>>>> if ( (result = a +b) > maxInt )
>>>> {
>>>>    .. switch to big integer arithmetic ..
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and i guess you can find many other cases where direct machine code is
>>>> more preferable than produced by compiler(s).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the last few posts you just wrote as many words arguing for
>>> NativeBoost
>>> as David did explaining how to get started writing a plugin. Except when
>>> he
>>> was done a person could actually start to write a plugin. If you and
>>> Lawson
>>> spent as much time providing examples for NativeBoost as you do extolling
>>> its virtues, I could actually try it for myself.
>>>
>> Chris, its unfair.
>
> Thank you. Thank you very much. :)
>
>> First, David only gave instructions how to set things up,
>> but not how to actually start writing a plugin.. if he would do that,
>> his post will be extended to dozens of pages :)
>
> Yea, but it's a start. I mean he's got to start talking about subclassing
> from InterpreterPlugin? He covers a lot of ground for a beginning.
>
>> And second, if i remember, you were present at my presentation i
>> giving about NB,
>> so i really surprised to hear that from you.
>
> Hmmmm... this one http://osrcon.ca/AboutFFI.pdf ?
>
> Yea, OK, you have a point. But in my defense DeepIntoSmalltalk was ... let's
> just say there was a lot of material.
>
>> But you right, i am not good at writing docs, because i am way too
>> lazy, and there's always more important things to do (well you know
>> ;). But i am working on fixing that. :)
>
> I seem to recall Lawson makes movies.
>
>>
>> And for getting starting with NB you can just follow installation
>> instructions from here:
>> http://code.google.com/p/nativeboost/wiki/Installation
>>
>> and if you need some examples of use, just recently i found this project:
>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ICU
>
> That looks interesting.
>
>> which interesting in respect that it using two different FFI
>> implementations,
>> so you can load both and browse code and compare the way how things done.
>> I am not sure in what state this project are, but since you don't need
>> to actually "run" things, you can just
>> browse the code to see how it done.
>>
> But "I would like to know more" about NativeBoost. (As long as I don't have
> to work too hard to know it. :p)

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=l_5UZfwX0ss&NR=1
>
> (That's an inside joke to people who were at DeepIntoSmalltalk. Igor's
> slides showed him to be a big fan of Starship Troopers and Firefly.)
>>>
>>> Chris
>
>
>

> On 20 August 2012 04:10, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 12-08-19 9:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>> On 20 August 2012 00:53, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12-08-19 6:26 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>> On 17 August 2012 22:21, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of NativeBoost,
>>>>>>> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile to
>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost?
>>>>>> Wouldn't
>>>>>> that be Cog/JIT?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right. It is native. You can talk directly to metal. No layers on
>>>>> top.. you are the in total control.
>>>>> This is the main motivation behind a project.
>>>>> You can build abstractions on top of it, of course. And of course you
>>>>> can make it portable across
>>>>> as many platforms as you need.. It may be hard but it is doable.
>>>>> But conceptually one thing are not gonna change: you have direct
>>>>> access to machine code,
>>>>> which means no compiler standing in your way, which generating
>>>>> suboptimal code :)
>>>>> And for some cases it is simply impossible to implement things in C
>>>>> without heavy sacrifices in speed..
>>>>> consider arithmetic overflow - in CPU's you have a flag which indicates
>>>>> that..
>>>>> but in C there is no way how you can access it.. so you cannot just
>>>>> write:
>>>>>
>>>>> int a, b;
>>>>> if ( (result = a +b) > maxInt )
>>>>> {
>>>>>     .. switch to big integer arithmetic ..
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> and i guess you can find many other cases where direct machine code is
>>>>> more preferable than produced by compiler(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In the last few posts you just wrote as many words arguing for
>>>> NativeBoost
>>>> as David did explaining how to get started writing a plugin. Except when
>>>> he
>>>> was done a person could actually start to write a plugin. If you and
>>>> Lawson
>>>> spent as much time providing examples for NativeBoost as you do extolling
>>>> its virtues, I could actually try it for myself.
>>>>
>>> Chris, its unfair.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. :)
>>
>>> First, David only gave instructions how to set things up,
>>> but not how to actually start writing a plugin.. if he would do that,
>>> his post will be extended to dozens of pages :)
>> Yea, but it's a start. I mean he's got to start talking about subclassing
>> from InterpreterPlugin? He covers a lot of ground for a beginning.
>>
>>> And second, if i remember, you were present at my presentation i
>>> giving about NB,
>>> so i really surprised to hear that from you.
>> Hmmmm... this one http://osrcon.ca/AboutFFI.pdf ?
>>
>> Yea, OK, you have a point. But in my defense DeepIntoSmalltalk was ... let's
>> just say there was a lot of material.
>>
>>> But you right, i am not good at writing docs, because i am way too
>>> lazy, and there's always more important things to do (well you know
>>> ;). But i am working on fixing that. :)
>> I seem to recall Lawson makes movies.
>>
>>> And for getting starting with NB you can just follow installation
>>> instructions from here:
>>> http://code.google.com/p/nativeboost/wiki/Installation
>>>
>>> and if you need some examples of use, just recently i found this project:
>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ICU
>> That looks interesting.
>>
>>> which interesting in respect that it using two different FFI
>>> implementations,
>>> so you can load both and browse code and compare the way how things done.
>>> I am not sure in what state this project are, but since you don't need
>>> to actually "run" things, you can just
>>> browse the code to see how it done.
>>>
>> But "I would like to know more" about NativeBoost. (As long as I don't have
>> to work too hard to know it. :p)
> Just today i spent couple of hours to make the NB-Help package work
> out of the box.
> You can find the NativeBoost-Help package in NativeBoost repository..
> i wrote some stuff there but it is not that much..(and some stuff is
> already outdated.. things moving fast) however i will keep pumping
> into it. :)
>
> All you need to do is to load this package , and then open the system
> help browser (from world menu) and look for
> NativeBoost bookmark.

>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=l_5UZfwX0ss&NR=1
>>
>> (That's an inside joke to people who were at DeepIntoSmalltalk. Igor's
>> slides showed him to be a big fan of Starship Troopers and Firefly.)
>>>> Chris
>>
>>
>
>

> On 12-08-20 1:52 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 20 August 2012 04:10, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12-08-19 9:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20 August 2012 00:53, Chris Cunnington
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12-08-19 6:26 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 August 2012 22:21, Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of
>>>>>>>> NativeBoost,
>>>>>>>> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost?
>>>>>>> Wouldn't
>>>>>>> that be Cog/JIT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. It is native. You can talk directly to metal. No layers on
>>>>>> top.. you are the in total control.
>>>>>> This is the main motivation behind a project.
>>>>>> You can build abstractions on top of it, of course. And of course you
>>>>>> can make it portable across
>>>>>> as many platforms as you need.. It may be hard but it is doable.
>>>>>> But conceptually one thing are not gonna change: you have direct
>>>>>> access to machine code,
>>>>>> which means no compiler standing in your way, which generating
>>>>>> suboptimal code :)
>>>>>> And for some cases it is simply impossible to implement things in C
>>>>>> without heavy sacrifices in speed..
>>>>>> consider arithmetic overflow - in CPU's you have a flag which
>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>> that..
>>>>>> but in C there is no way how you can access it.. so you cannot just
>>>>>> write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int a, b;
>>>>>> if ( (result = a +b) > maxInt )
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     .. switch to big integer arithmetic ..
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and i guess you can find many other cases where direct machine code is
>>>>>> more preferable than produced by compiler(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In the last few posts you just wrote as many words arguing for
>>>>> NativeBoost
>>>>> as David did explaining how to get started writing a plugin. Except
>>>>> when
>>>>> he
>>>>> was done a person could actually start to write a plugin. If you and
>>>>> Lawson
>>>>> spent as much time providing examples for NativeBoost as you do
>>>>> extolling
>>>>> its virtues, I could actually try it for myself.
>>>>>
>>>> Chris, its unfair.
>>>
>>> Thank you. Thank you very much. :)
>>>
>>>> First, David only gave instructions how to set things up,
>>>> but not how to actually start writing a plugin.. if he would do that,
>>>> his post will be extended to dozens of pages :)
>>>
>>> Yea, but it's a start. I mean he's got to start talking about subclassing
>>> from InterpreterPlugin? He covers a lot of ground for a beginning.
>>>
>>>> And second, if i remember, you were present at my presentation i
>>>> giving about NB,
>>>> so i really surprised to hear that from you.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm... this one http://osrcon.ca/AboutFFI.pdf ?
>>>
>>> Yea, OK, you have a point. But in my defense DeepIntoSmalltalk was ...
>>> let's
>>> just say there was a lot of material.
>>>
>>>> But you right, i am not good at writing docs, because i am way too
>>>> lazy, and there's always more important things to do (well you know
>>>> ;). But i am working on fixing that. :)
>>>
>>> I seem to recall Lawson makes movies.
>>>
>>>> And for getting starting with NB you can just follow installation
>>>> instructions from here:
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/nativeboost/wiki/Installation
>>>>
>>>> and if you need some examples of use, just recently i found this
>>>> project:
>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ICU
>>>
>>> That looks interesting.
>>>
>>>> which interesting in respect that it using two different FFI
>>>> implementations,
>>>> so you can load both and browse code and compare the way how things
>>>> done.
>>>> I am not sure in what state this project are, but since you don't need
>>>> to actually "run" things, you can just
>>>> browse the code to see how it done.
>>>>
>>> But "I would like to know more" about NativeBoost. (As long as I don't
>>> have
>>> to work too hard to know it. :p)
>>
>> Just today i spent couple of hours to make the NB-Help package work
>> out of the box.
>> You can find the NativeBoost-Help package in NativeBoost repository..
>> i wrote some stuff there but it is not that much..(and some stuff is
>> already outdated.. things moving fast) however i will keep pumping
>> into it. :)
>>
>> All you need to do is to load this package , and then open the system
>> help browser (from world menu) and look for
>> NativeBoost bookmark.
>
> Thanks. This stuff looks great. I'll watch for updates to the Help package.
> The Help Browser is a nice way to learn things, as it's bite sized, right
> there in the image, etc. I've got a NativeBoost.app on my desktop now and
> will poke around with it. I do see there is some stuff at the
> http://code.gogoel.com/p/nativeboost location. The Help Browser is a more
> fun place for it to be, I think.
>

> Chris
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFj8eFZx-TA&feature=related
>
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=l_5UZfwX0ss&NR=1
>>>
>>> (That's an inside joke to people who were at DeepIntoSmalltalk. Igor's
>>> slides showed him to be a big fan of Starship Troopers and Firefly.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

> ________________________________
> From: Igor Stasenko [via Smalltalk]
> <[hidden email]>
> To: kilon <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
>
> On 21 August 2012 10:15, kilon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Igor hi, I downloaded and installed Nativeboost-help to my pharo 1.4 image
>> and it complains that it cannot find PPMarkDown . Any idea where i can
>> find
>> such class ?  It makes a call to it in NBHelperStyler  >> markdownText:
>> string
>>
> Hmm, what version are you loaded?
> If you load version .2 it should load missing dependencies automatically.
>
>> ________________________________
>> View this message in context: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest
>> squeak
>> ?
>>
>> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://forum.world.st/Why-FFI-is-not-included-with-latest-squeak-tp4644264p4644809.html
> To unsubscribe from Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?, click
> here.
> NAML
>
>
>
>
>

> i just uploaded version .4 try it.
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Igor Stasenko [via Smalltalk]
>> <[hidden email]>
>> To: kilon <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 15:44
>> Subject: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 10:15, kilon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Igor hi, I downloaded and installed Nativeboost-help to my pharo 1.4 image
>>> and it complains that it cannot find PPMarkDown . Any idea where i can
>>> find
>>> such class ?  It makes a call to it in NBHelperStyler  >> markdownText:
>>> string
>>>
>> Hmm, what version are you loaded?
>> If you load version .2 it should load missing dependencies automatically.
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> View this message in context: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest
>>> squeak
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://forum.world.st/Why-FFI-is-not-included-with-latest-squeak-tp4644264p4644809.html
>> To unsubscribe from Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?, click
>> here.
>> NAML
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.

> ________________________________
> From: Igor Stasenko [via Smalltalk]
> <[hidden email]>
>
> To: kilon <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 23:54
> Subject: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
>
> On 21 August 2012 22:24, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 21 August 2012 22:12, dimitris chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I think its the latest but I am not sure, how I find the version ?
>>>
> in monticello browser , if you open a repository you can see a list of
> packages
> and their versions:
>
> NativeBoost-Help-IgorStasenko.4
> is latest as of today.
>
>> i just uploaded version .4 try it.
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Igor Stasenko [via Smalltalk]
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> To: kilon <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 15:44
>>> Subject: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 10:15, kilon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Igor hi, I downloaded and installed Nativeboost-help to my pharo 1.4
>>>> image
>>>> and it complains that it cannot find PPMarkDown . Any idea where i can
>>>> find
>>>> such class ?  It makes a call to it in NBHelperStyler  >> markdownText:
>>>> string
>>>>
>>> Hmm, what version are you loaded?
>>> If you load version .2 it should load missing dependencies automatically.
>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> View this message in context: Re: Why FFI is not included with latest
>>>> squeak
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Igor Stasenko.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>>> below:
>>>
>>> http://forum.world.st/Why-FFI-is-not-included-with-latest-squeak-tp4644264p4644809.html
>>> To unsubscribe from Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?, click
>>> here.
>>> NAML
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://forum.world.st/Why-FFI-is-not-included-with-latest-squeak-tp4644264p4644882.html
> To unsubscribe from Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?, click
> here.
> NAML
>
>
>
>
>