<example>/<examplar>
Locked
12
12
 
|
2016-08-19 23:13 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: Hi, I would not attach any action to a pragma, but instead let the different tools decide what to do. The pragma is just used to differentiate what the method execution returns: <example> or <exampleCode> - a code or script example - don't care about the returned object. A tool like Nautilus just provides a way to execute the code ("play" - icon) nothing more. <script> - a code snippet for a more general use case (example or class initialization). A tool like Nautilus just provices a way to execute the code and for example, like it is now, show a growl notification with the result <sample> or <sampleInstance> - code to create an instance. A tool like Nautilus can just provide a way to execute the code and open an inspector on the result. (The inspector itself can react differently for a morph -> inspectors morph tab a roassal view -> inspector tab for roassal view .... I am for <example> for the first case, <exampleCode> is good as well, but I like <example> more, and it is not uncommon to call some "code examples" just "examples" <sample> for a method that creates "the interesting object", <sampleInstance> is fine as well.
|
|
|
Hi,
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > 2016-08-19 23:13 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > If you attache a certain action such as "result openInWorld” to a pragma such as <interactiveExample>, it implies that when I have a different resulting object that should be spawned with a different message (for example, a Roassal view should be opened with "result open"), I should use a different pragma. That will quickly lead to an explosion of pragmas. > > Cheers, > Doru > > I would not attach any action to a pragma, but instead let the different tools decide what to do. The pragma is just used to differentiate what the method execution returns: > > <example> or <exampleCode> - a code or script example - don't care about the returned object. A tool like Nautilus just provides a way to execute the code ("play" - icon) nothing more. > <script> - a code snippet for a more general use case (example or class initialization). A tool like Nautilus just provices a way to execute the code and for example, like it is now, show a growl notification with the result > <sample> or <sampleInstance> - code to create an instance. A tool like Nautilus can just provide a way to execute the code and open an inspector on the result. (The inspector itself can react differently for > a morph -> inspectors morph tab > a roassal view -> inspector tab for roassal view > …. The inspector has the instance and can react to it. But, how can Nautilus know what to do without the instance? For that you would need static information. Doru > I am for <example> for the first case, <exampleCode> is good as well, but I like <example> more, and it is not uncommon to call some "code examples" just "examples" > <sample> for a method that creates "the interesting object", <sampleInstance> is fine as well. > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:32 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Le 19/8/16 à 10:18, Tudor Girba a écrit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> I strongly believe that the interaction should not be hardcoded in the example pragma name. That is because you will want all sorts of interactions once you go beyond the surface. For example, a Roassal visualization, a Bloc element, and a Morph are all interesting from an interaction point of view, but there are different ways to open them (and having it polymorphic does not quite make sense). > > > > sorry but I cannot understand what you mean. > > You suggest to use example > > but not to have it polymorphic? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Doru > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:52 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Let me know. I do not care about examplar or sample. > >>> > >>> Let us pick one that works well. I thought about prototype but this is too close to prototype based language. > >>> > >>> So we could get > >>> > >>> <interactiveExample> > >>> > >>> <sample>/<instance>/ > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 19/8/16 à 01:59, Ben Coman a écrit : > >>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> 2016-08-18 17:30 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]>: > >>>>>> On 18/08/16 14:38, stepharo wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In my projects I start to do the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I create <examplar> class method that returns an prototypical instance. > >>>>>> Nice. Excellent inititive. I'm not a native speaker, and <exemplar> does not > >>>>>> sound like the right name for this to me. That might be me being dutch. > >>>>>> Native speakers, is this the right name to use? > >>>>> Semantically it is correct, but for me, also maybe by not being a > >>>>> native English speaker, sounds weird. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd use something like "sample". However I'll be fine with whatever > >>>>> you choose. But I'd choose something that doesn't sound weird to > >>>>> native English readers, we already have some cases of that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Esteban A. Maringolo > >>>>> > >>>> In the previous thread I argued against <exemplar> and for <sample>, > >>>> but I'm not so strong in my conviction to push it again :). The > >>>> former is a little exotic, but is sufficient -- and perhaps its useful > >>>> <example> and <exemplar> sound similar with just a minor difference at > >>>> the end. > >>>> > >>>> P.S. In terms of discover-ability about this difference, a passing > >>>> thought is it would be nice for newcomers to be able to hover over a > >>>> code like a pragma and get a tool tip popup. > >>>> > >>>> cheers -ben > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> www.tudorgirba.com > >> www.feenk.com > >> > >> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Obvious things are difficult to teach." |
|
|
2016-08-20 0:02 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: Hi, <example> -> execute <sample> -> execute and inspect <script> -> execute and show a growl information with the returned value.
|
|
|
Hi,
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > 2016-08-20 0:02 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-08-19 23:13 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > > Hi, > > > > If you attache a certain action such as "result openInWorld” to a pragma such as <interactiveExample>, it implies that when I have a different resulting object that should be spawned with a different message (for example, a Roassal view should be opened with "result open"), I should use a different pragma. That will quickly lead to an explosion of pragmas. > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > I would not attach any action to a pragma, but instead let the different tools decide what to do. The pragma is just used to differentiate what the method execution returns: > > > > <example> or <exampleCode> - a code or script example - don't care about the returned object. A tool like Nautilus just provides a way to execute the code ("play" - icon) nothing more. > > <script> - a code snippet for a more general use case (example or class initialization). A tool like Nautilus just provices a way to execute the code and for example, like it is now, show a growl notification with the result > > <sample> or <sampleInstance> - code to create an instance. A tool like Nautilus can just provide a way to execute the code and open an inspector on the result. (The inspector itself can react differently for > > a morph -> inspectors morph tab > > a roassal view -> inspector tab for roassal view > > …. > > The inspector has the instance and can react to it. But, how can Nautilus know what to do without the instance? For that you would need static information. > > by the pragma name ? > > <example> -> execute > <sample> -> execute and inspect > <script> -> execute and show a growl information with the returned value. As I understood the discussion, one issue was to associate an action that can be specific to an object, and the example given was a morph that people might want to interact with. This interaction would be achieved by sending openInWorld. But, maybe I misunderstood. Cheers, Doru > > > > > > Doru > > > > I am for <example> for the first case, <exampleCode> is good as well, but I like <example> more, and it is not uncommon to call some "code examples" just "examples" > > <sample> for a method that creates "the interesting object", <sampleInstance> is fine as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:32 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 19/8/16 à 10:18, Tudor Girba a écrit : > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I strongly believe that the interaction should not be hardcoded in the example pragma name. That is because you will want all sorts of interactions once you go beyond the surface. For example, a Roassal visualization, a Bloc element, and a Morph are all interesting from an interaction point of view, but there are different ways to open them (and having it polymorphic does not quite make sense). > > > > > > sorry but I cannot understand what you mean. > > > You suggest to use example > > > but not to have it polymorphic? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Doru > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:52 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Let me know. I do not care about examplar or sample. > > >>> > > >>> Let us pick one that works well. I thought about prototype but this is too close to prototype based language. > > >>> > > >>> So we could get > > >>> > > >>> <interactiveExample> > > >>> > > >>> <sample>/<instance>/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Le 19/8/16 à 01:59, Ben Coman a écrit : > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo > > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>>> 2016-08-18 17:30 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]>: > > >>>>>> On 18/08/16 14:38, stepharo wrote: > > >>>>>>> Hi > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> In my projects I start to do the following: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I create <examplar> class method that returns an prototypical instance. > > >>>>>> Nice. Excellent inititive. I'm not a native speaker, and <exemplar> does not > > >>>>>> sound like the right name for this to me. That might be me being dutch. > > >>>>>> Native speakers, is this the right name to use? > > >>>>> Semantically it is correct, but for me, also maybe by not being a > > >>>>> native English speaker, sounds weird. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'd use something like "sample". However I'll be fine with whatever > > >>>>> you choose. But I'd choose something that doesn't sound weird to > > >>>>> native English readers, we already have some cases of that. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Esteban A. Maringolo > > >>>>> > > >>>> In the previous thread I argued against <exemplar> and for <sample>, > > >>>> but I'm not so strong in my conviction to push it again :). The > > >>>> former is a little exotic, but is sufficient -- and perhaps its useful > > >>>> <example> and <exemplar> sound similar with just a minor difference at > > >>>> the end. > > >>>> > > >>>> P.S. In terms of discover-ability about this difference, a passing > > >>>> thought is it would be nice for newcomers to be able to hover over a > > >>>> code like a pragma and get a tool tip popup. > > >>>> > > >>>> cheers -ben > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> www.tudorgirba.com > > >> www.feenk.com > > >> > > >> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." > > > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge." |
|
|
2016-08-20 0:26 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: Hi, No, that wasn't what I meant. The question was, do we need two pragmas <example> and <examplar>, if the <example> just opens a morph in the world instead of opening it in inspector. And I would say "yes", because for some "examples" (look at the <example> tagged methods for FastTable) it makes more sense to have the morph in the world instead of the inspector. But I don't want to associate this action #openInWorld to the pragma, instead, whoever writes the <example> method, should decide. an <example> method for a morph should end with #openInWorld an <example> method for a spec model should end with #openWithSpec an <example> method for a roassal example should end with #whateverIsUsedToOpenItInAView. and the example given was a morph that people might want to interact with. This interaction would be achieved by sending openInWorld. But, maybe I misunderstood.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2
by the pragma name ?
Exactly. :) This is the way I implemented it. Stef |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2
>> stepharo wrote
>>> Let me know. I do not care about examplar or sample. >> In the original thread [1]: >> - The most popular naming option was for some combination of >> exampleInstance, exampleCode, sampleInstance, and sampleCode because they >> are both natural-sounding-to-native-ears and explicit. >> - There was a small (Ben and I) consensus leaning specifically toward >> <exampleCode> together with <sampleInstance> > That makes a lot of sense, so +1 > > And UI stuff would then be a case of <exampleCode> right, as side effect ? Yes So <sampleInstance> instead of <examplar> Do we agree? and I just do update the slice. Stef > >> - Exemplar (note it's not spelled exAmplar) is a bit obscure English >> - There were some more exotic parameterized varieties discussed, but maybe >> it's best to save those for a future evolution >> >> [1] >> http://forum.world.st/lt-example-gt-pragmas-and-example-methods-use-cases-td4833428.html >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/example-examplar-tp4911728p4911947.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2
Hi,
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 1:29 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > 2016-08-20 0:26 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-08-20 0:02 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > > Hi, > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-08-19 23:13 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > If you attache a certain action such as "result openInWorld” to a pragma such as <interactiveExample>, it implies that when I have a different resulting object that should be spawned with a different message (for example, a Roassal view should be opened with "result open"), I should use a different pragma. That will quickly lead to an explosion of pragmas. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Doru > > > > > > I would not attach any action to a pragma, but instead let the different tools decide what to do. The pragma is just used to differentiate what the method execution returns: > > > > > > <example> or <exampleCode> - a code or script example - don't care about the returned object. A tool like Nautilus just provides a way to execute the code ("play" - icon) nothing more. > > > <script> - a code snippet for a more general use case (example or class initialization). A tool like Nautilus just provices a way to execute the code and for example, like it is now, show a growl notification with the result > > > <sample> or <sampleInstance> - code to create an instance. A tool like Nautilus can just provide a way to execute the code and open an inspector on the result. (The inspector itself can react differently for > > > a morph -> inspectors morph tab > > > a roassal view -> inspector tab for roassal view > > > …. > > > > The inspector has the instance and can react to it. But, how can Nautilus know what to do without the instance? For that you would need static information. > > > > by the pragma name ? > > > > <example> -> execute > > <sample> -> execute and inspect > > <script> -> execute and show a growl information with the returned value. > > As I understood the discussion, one issue was to associate an action that can be specific to an object, > > No, that wasn't what I meant. > The question was, do we need two pragmas <example> and <examplar>, if the <example> just opens a morph in the world instead of opening it in inspector. > And I would say "yes", because for some "examples" (look at the <example> tagged methods for FastTable) it makes more sense to have the morph in the > world instead of the inspector. But I don't want to associate this action #openInWorld to the pragma, instead, whoever writes the <example> method, should decide. > an <example> method for a morph should end with #openInWorld > an <example> method for a spec model should end with #openWithSpec > an <example> method for a roassal example should end with #whateverIsUsedToOpenItInAView. > In this case, you will not be able to use the resulting object, and the new energy around examples started from the need to utilize that ability The other solution is to delegate the action to another pragma that can complement the example one. Doru > and the example given was a morph that people might want to interact with. This interaction would be achieved by sending openInWorld. But, maybe I misunderstood. > > > > > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doru > > > > > > > I am for <example> for the first case, <exampleCode> is good as well, but I like <example> more, and it is not uncommon to call some "code examples" just "examples" > > > <sample> for a method that creates "the interesting object", <sampleInstance> is fine as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:32 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 19/8/16 à 10:18, Tudor Girba a écrit : > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I strongly believe that the interaction should not be hardcoded in the example pragma name. That is because you will want all sorts of interactions once you go beyond the surface. For example, a Roassal visualization, a Bloc element, and a Morph are all interesting from an interaction point of view, but there are different ways to open them (and having it polymorphic does not quite make sense). > > > > > > > > sorry but I cannot understand what you mean. > > > > You suggest to use example > > > > but not to have it polymorphic? > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Doru > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:52 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Let me know. I do not care about examplar or sample. > > > >>> > > > >>> Let us pick one that works well. I thought about prototype but this is too close to prototype based language. > > > >>> > > > >>> So we could get > > > >>> > > > >>> <interactiveExample> > > > >>> > > > >>> <sample>/<instance>/ > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Le 19/8/16 à 01:59, Ben Coman a écrit : > > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo > > > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >>>>> 2016-08-18 17:30 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]>: > > > >>>>>> On 18/08/16 14:38, stepharo wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Hi > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> In my projects I start to do the following: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I create <examplar> class method that returns an prototypical instance. > > > >>>>>> Nice. Excellent inititive. I'm not a native speaker, and <exemplar> does not > > > >>>>>> sound like the right name for this to me. That might be me being dutch. > > > >>>>>> Native speakers, is this the right name to use? > > > >>>>> Semantically it is correct, but for me, also maybe by not being a > > > >>>>> native English speaker, sounds weird. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I'd use something like "sample". However I'll be fine with whatever > > > >>>>> you choose. But I'd choose something that doesn't sound weird to > > > >>>>> native English readers, we already have some cases of that. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Esteban A. Maringolo > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> In the previous thread I argued against <exemplar> and for <sample>, > > > >>>> but I'm not so strong in my conviction to push it again :). The > > > >>>> former is a little exotic, but is sufficient -- and perhaps its useful > > > >>>> <example> and <exemplar> sound similar with just a minor difference at > > > >>>> the end. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> P.S. In terms of discover-ability about this difference, a passing > > > >>>> thought is it would be nice for newcomers to be able to hover over a > > > >>>> code like a pragma and get a tool tip popup. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> cheers -ben > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> -- > > > >> www.tudorgirba.com > > > >> www.feenk.com > > > >> > > > >> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > www.feenk.com > > > > > > "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Yesterday is a fact. > Tomorrow is a possibility. > Today is a challenge." -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, one might have better chances to win by moving slower." |
|
|
2016-08-20 18:29 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: Hi, what is " the new energy around examples" ? Doru |
|
|
Hi,
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:12 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > 2016-08-20 18:29 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 1:29 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-08-20 0:26 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > > Hi, > > > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-08-20 0:02 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-08-19 23:13 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > If you attache a certain action such as "result openInWorld” to a pragma such as <interactiveExample>, it implies that when I have a different resulting object that should be spawned with a different message (for example, a Roassal view should be opened with "result open"), I should use a different pragma. That will quickly lead to an explosion of pragmas. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Doru > > > > > > > > I would not attach any action to a pragma, but instead let the different tools decide what to do. The pragma is just used to differentiate what the method execution returns: > > > > > > > > <example> or <exampleCode> - a code or script example - don't care about the returned object. A tool like Nautilus just provides a way to execute the code ("play" - icon) nothing more. > > > > <script> - a code snippet for a more general use case (example or class initialization). A tool like Nautilus just provices a way to execute the code and for example, like it is now, show a growl notification with the result > > > > <sample> or <sampleInstance> - code to create an instance. A tool like Nautilus can just provide a way to execute the code and open an inspector on the result. (The inspector itself can react differently for > > > > a morph -> inspectors morph tab > > > > a roassal view -> inspector tab for roassal view > > > > …. > > > > > > The inspector has the instance and can react to it. But, how can Nautilus know what to do without the instance? For that you would need static information. > > > > > > by the pragma name ? > > > > > > <example> -> execute > > > <sample> -> execute and inspect > > > <script> -> execute and show a growl information with the returned value. > > > > As I understood the discussion, one issue was to associate an action that can be specific to an object, > > > > No, that wasn't what I meant. > > The question was, do we need two pragmas <example> and <examplar>, if the <example> just opens a morph in the world instead of opening it in inspector. > > And I would say "yes", because for some "examples" (look at the <example> tagged methods for FastTable) it makes more sense to have the morph in the > > world instead of the inspector. But I don't want to associate this action #openInWorld to the pragma, instead, whoever writes the <example> method, should decide. > > an <example> method for a morph should end with #openInWorld > > an <example> method for a spec model should end with #openWithSpec > > an <example> method for a roassal example should end with #whateverIsUsedToOpenItInAView. > > > > In this case, you will not be able to use the resulting object, and the new energy around examples started from the need to utilize that ability The other solution is to delegate the action to another pragma that can complement the example one. > > > what is " the new energy around examples” ? This thread :). I happen to believe that examples are an important ingredient in the future of Pharo, and I am just really happy that people want to invest attention and effort in it. I also think that the examples problem is not a simple problem and finding the solution is not quite so straightforward. There exists already a solution for examples inside the Pharo image. Stefan Reichhart and I worked on this for about 2 years now, and now we have a new version that is outside of the Pharo image. However, as it got in the Pharo image without much public discussion (this was a mistake on our side), we will now take it out to make sure that we can have that proper discussion. We are also trying our best to document it. I will follow up with more details in the next following days. Doru > Doru > > > and the example given was a morph that people might want to interact with. This interaction would be achieved by sending openInWorld. But, maybe I misunderstood. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doru > > > > > > > > > > I am for <example> for the first case, <exampleCode> is good as well, but I like <example> more, and it is not uncommon to call some "code examples" just "examples" > > > > <sample> for a method that creates "the interesting object", <sampleInstance> is fine as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:32 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 19/8/16 à 10:18, Tudor Girba a écrit : > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> I strongly believe that the interaction should not be hardcoded in the example pragma name. That is because you will want all sorts of interactions once you go beyond the surface. For example, a Roassal visualization, a Bloc element, and a Morph are all interesting from an interaction point of view, but there are different ways to open them (and having it polymorphic does not quite make sense). > > > > > > > > > > sorry but I cannot understand what you mean. > > > > > You suggest to use example > > > > > but not to have it polymorphic? > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > >> Doru > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:52 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Let me know. I do not care about examplar or sample. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Let us pick one that works well. I thought about prototype but this is too close to prototype based language. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> So we could get > > > > >>> > > > > >>> <interactiveExample> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> <sample>/<instance>/ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Le 19/8/16 à 01:59, Ben Coman a écrit : > > > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo > > > > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> 2016-08-18 17:30 GMT-03:00 Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]>: > > > > >>>>>> On 18/08/16 14:38, stepharo wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> Hi > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> In my projects I start to do the following: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I create <examplar> class method that returns an prototypical instance. > > > > >>>>>> Nice. Excellent inititive. I'm not a native speaker, and <exemplar> does not > > > > >>>>>> sound like the right name for this to me. That might be me being dutch. > > > > >>>>>> Native speakers, is this the right name to use? > > > > >>>>> Semantically it is correct, but for me, also maybe by not being a > > > > >>>>> native English speaker, sounds weird. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I'd use something like "sample". However I'll be fine with whatever > > > > >>>>> you choose. But I'd choose something that doesn't sound weird to > > > > >>>>> native English readers, we already have some cases of that. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Regards, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Esteban A. Maringolo > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> In the previous thread I argued against <exemplar> and for <sample>, > > > > >>>> but I'm not so strong in my conviction to push it again :). The > > > > >>>> former is a little exotic, but is sufficient -- and perhaps its useful > > > > >>>> <example> and <exemplar> sound similar with just a minor difference at > > > > >>>> the end. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> P.S. In terms of discover-ability about this difference, a passing > > > > >>>> thought is it would be nice for newcomers to be able to hover over a > > > > >>>> code like a pragma and get a tool tip popup. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> cheers -ben > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> www.tudorgirba.com > > > > >> www.feenk.com > > > > >> > > > > >> "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her." > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > www.feenk.com > > > > > > > > "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > www.feenk.com > > > > > > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "Yesterday is a fact. > > Tomorrow is a possibility. > > Today is a challenge." > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, > one might have better chances to win by moving slower." -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "When people care, great things can happen." |
|
|
2016-08-20 22:24 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>: Hi, good! ( I don't know much about the "solution for example inside teh Pharo image", I am not sure they are working as expected, and I am not sure I understand how they are supposed to work :-)
|
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Isn't that what we've settled on? That is, <sampleInstance> for when you need the result? It seems that all bases are covered if those methods return an instance and the browser button takes that instance and opens an inspector, no?
Cheers,
Sean |
|
|
Hi sean
this is exactly with <sampleInstance> but this is not exactly the solution doru envision. But I think that sampleInstance is letting people build extra tools and also let people use the sample method in their test and others. Stef Le 21/8/16 à 02:01, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > Tudor Girba-2 wrote >> In this case, you will not be able to use the resulting object, and the >> new energy around examples started from the need to utilize that ability >> The other solution is to delegate the action to another pragma that can >> complement the example one. > Isn't that what we've settled on? That is, <sampleInstance> for when you > need the result? It seems that all bases are covered if those methods return > an instance and the browser button takes that instance and opens an > inspector, no? > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/example-examplar-tp4911728p4912083.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > |
|
I will probably sound stupid but here I go.
I am no fan of Pragmas. I feel that their syntax is weird and unnecessary and what they do can be easily achieved with a secondary class that provides this meta data. In case of examples it would have been possible to have examples in a separate package together with a class that provides the additional info the IDE needs to trigger the right tools. On the other hand I was neither a fan of using example as part of a method name. Saying that instancePrototype sounds a lot more clear than examplar. On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 at 08:39, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi sean |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |