Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

[pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

30 messages Options

Eliot Miranda-3

[pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

Branch: refs/heads/6.0
Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core
Commit: edd9f3770d89ef3c48592411b97507dcb453bcef
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/edd9f3770d89ef3c48592411b97507dcb453bcef
Author: Jenkins Build Server <[hidden email]>
Date: 2016-09-13 (Tue, 13 Sep 2016)

Changed paths:
M AST-Core.package/RBParser.class/instance/private-parsing/parsePragmaLiteral.st
A AST-Tests-Core.package/RBParserTest.class/instance/tests parsing/testInvalidPragmaPosition.st
R AST-Tests-Core.package/RBParserTest.class/instance/tests parsing/testInvalidPragmas.st
A AST-Tests-Core.package/RBParserTest.class/instance/tests parsing/testPragmaImplicitLiteralArrayIsInvalid.st
R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60219.st
A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60220.st
R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60219.st
A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60220.st
M ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st

Log Message:
-----------
60220
19086 do not allow expressions as pragma arguments
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19086

http://files.pharo.org/image/60/60220.zip

stepharo

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

Hi nicolai

Why we should not accept

foo
<func: (3+4) res:0>
^ self

and be forced to put around ''

foo
< func: '(3+4)' res: 0 >
^ self

I understand that we store literal but why you do not like it :).

Stef

> 60220
> 19086 do not allow expressions as pragma arguments
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19086

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

2016-09-13 21:00 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:

Hi nicolai

Why we should not accept

foo
<func: (3+4) res:0>
^ self

and be forced to put around ''

foo
< func: '(3+4)' res: 0 >
^ self

I understand that we store literal but why you do not like it :).

First of all, the old compiler did not accept this. And I am a bit sensitive about changes, we allow a different syntax

just because RB happens to allow this (and maybe no one knows why or it just does not happens on purpose).

And another reason, even without my fix, if we don't put quotes around that expression, the reformatting the source will convert this to:

foo
<func: #(3 #+ 4) res: 0>
^ self

And, even if (3+4) looks like an expression, it is just a list of literals something like this:

foo
<func: ([[[}}}) res:0>
^ self

would be allowed too.

But of course this is only my own opinion :)

We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .

nicolai

Stef

60220
19086 do not allow expressions as pragma arguments
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19086

stepharo

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

Hi nicolai

Why we should not accept

foo
<func: (3+4) res:0>
^ self

and be forced to put around ''

foo
< func: '(3+4)' res: 0 >
^ self

I understand that we store literal but why you do not like it :).

First of all, the old compiler did not accept this. And I am a bit sensitive about changes, we allow a different syntax

just because RB happens to allow this (and maybe no one knows why or it just does not happens on purpose).

valid point.

And another reason, even without my fix, if we don't put quotes around that expression, the reformatting the source will convert this to:

foo
<func: #(3 #+ 4) res: 0>
^ self

What I noticed is that I could not write

foo
<expr: 3 + 4 result: 7>

but it worked when I put () so I did it in the new code I wrote.

And, even if (3+4) looks like an expression, it is just a list of literals something like this:

foo
<func: ([[[}}}) res:0>
^ self

would be allowed too.

This one is ugly

But of course this is only my own opinion :)

We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .

I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
but I really want to have literal programming.
What do you think?

If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '

nicolai

Stef

60220
19086 do not allow expressions as pragma arguments
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19086

Marcus Denker-4

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

>>
>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>
> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
> but I really want to have literal programming.
> What do you think?
>
I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...

> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '

it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?

Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.

I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
too limited to express code.

Marcus

Tudor Girba-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

Hi,

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>>
>> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
>> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> What do you think?
>>
> I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
>
>> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
>
> it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>
> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>
> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> too limited to express code.

I second that.

Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.

Cheers,
Doru

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Every thing should have the right to be different."

stepharo

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

>> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
>> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
and then? you try and if it failed then in not code and you do not
highlight it.
KISS. No?
>> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
>> too limited to express code.
> I second that.
> Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.

I'm talking about

basename
"Returns the base of the basename,
i.e.
/foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz'
/ basename is '/'"

I do not think that it makes sense to have a separate example for this.
Because you want to read everything

I do not see why the following would not work.
basename
"Returns the base of the basename"
<expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result:
'gloops.taz'>

Now I hate the extra ' for strings.
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can
easily parse because we need to improve
the use and discovery of the library.

basename
"Returns the base of the basename"
"
'/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
>>> 'gloops.taz'
"

I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that
well documented.
We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.

Stef

Tudor Girba-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

Hi,

Given the current interest, I am raising the issue of GTExample again.

I sent a while ago a thorough description of the current solution:
http://gtoolkit.org/doc/Examples/examples.html

The goal is to provide documentation for all methods and classes both by allowing simple examples (plain unary methods) and offering the potential of doing more than just simple things.

Except for Nicolai, there was no other feedback. Is there an interest to have a conversation about it?

Cheers,
Doru

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 8:40 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
>>> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
> and then? you try and if it failed then in not code and you do not highlight it.
> KISS. No?
>>> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
>>> too limited to express code.
>> I second that.
>> Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.
>
> I'm talking about
>
> basename
> "Returns the base of the basename,
> i.e.
> /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz'
> / basename is '/'"
>
> I do not think that it makes sense to have a separate example for this.
> Because you want to read everything
>
>
> I do not see why the following would not work.
> basename
> "Returns the base of the basename"
> <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
>
> Now I hate the extra ' for strings.
> We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve
> the use and discovery of the library.
>
> basename
> "Returns the base of the basename"
> "
> '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
> >>> 'gloops.taz'
> "
>
> I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented.
> We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Innovation comes in the least expected form.
That is, if it is expected, it already happened."

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

In reply to this post by stepharo

2016-09-14 21:24 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:

Hi nicolai

Why we should not accept

foo
<func: (3+4) res:0>
^ self

and be forced to put around ''

foo
< func: '(3+4)' res: 0 >
^ self

I understand that we store literal but why you do not like it :).

First of all, the old compiler did not accept this. And I am a bit sensitive about changes, we allow a different syntax

just because RB happens to allow this (and maybe no one knows why or it just does not happens on purpose).

valid point.

And another reason, even without my fix, if we don't put quotes around that expression, the reformatting the source will convert this to:

foo
    <func: #(3 #+ 4) res: 0>
    ^ self

What I noticed is that I could not write

foo
    <expr: 3 + 4 result: 7>

but it worked when I put () so I did it in the new code I wrote.

And, even if (3+4) looks like an expression, it is just a list of literals something like this:

foo
    <func: ([[[}}}) res:0>
    ^ self

would be allowed too.

This one is ugly

But of course this is only my own opinion :)

We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .

I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
but I really want to have literal programming.
What do you think?

So, until know, I didn't really know what pythondoctest is about. I first thought the "test" is about unit tests

and thought our way how we can generate or jump from methods to the corresponding is better,

but know I understand that it is about "perform regression testing by verifying that interactive examples are working"

And that is of course a good idea.

If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '

Not for pragma arguments, I think this would be confusing.

I did some expreiments with formatting code in comments. I 'll write shortly about it.

nicolai

Stef

60220
19086 do not allow expressions as pragma arguments
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19086

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

2016-09-15 8:12 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>>
>> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
>> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> What do you think?
>>
> I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
>
>> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
>
> it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>
> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>
> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> too limited to express code.

I second that.

Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.

I really like the one liners that you can find im some method comments, like in Color class>>#wheel:

if you are new to pharo and start exploring the system, it makes fun to see these little one lines and

just execute it. (even if they aren't onelines like in some method in class Form).

Cheers,
Doru

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Every thing should have the right to be different."

Tudor Girba-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

Hi,

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2016-09-15 8:12 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
> Hi,
>
> > On Sep 15, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
> >>
> >> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
> >> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
> >> but I really want to have literal programming.
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> > I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
> >
> >> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
> >
> > it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
> >
> > Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> > Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
> >
> > I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> > too limited to express code.
>
> I second that.
>
> Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.
>
> I really like the one liners that you can find im some method comments, like in Color class>>#wheel:
> if you are new to pharo and start exploring the system, it makes fun to see these little one lines and
> just execute it. (even if they aren't onelines like in some method in class Form).
>

I like one liners, too. But, should a documentation mechanism be confined to only work with small examples?

Cheers,
Doru

> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Every thing should have the right to be different."

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."

stepharo

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2

So, until know, I didn't really know what pythondoctest is about. I first thought the "test" is about unit tests

and thought our way how we can generate or jump from methods to the corresponding is better,

but know I understand that it is about "perform regression testing by verifying that interactive examples are working"

And that is of course a good idea.

To me this is more than that.
This is having simple scenario always validated and in front of my nose when I read the code.

If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '

Not for pragma arguments, I think this would be confusing.

Yes I cam to the same conclusion than marcus.

I did some expreiments with formatting code in comments. I 'll write shortly about it.

nicolai

Stef

60220
19086 do not allow expressions as pragma arguments
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19086

stepharo

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2

Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.

I really like the one liners that you can find im some method comments, like in Color class>>#wheel:

if you are new to pharo and start exploring the system, it makes fun to see these little one lines and

just execute it. (even if they aren't onelines like in some method in class Form).

Me too and what I like is that there are coupled to the method.
I find a method and I guess it will help me
and bam I read the example and I'm sure it is or not what I'm looking for.

Stef

Cheers,
Doru

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Every thing should have the right to be different."

Thierry Goubier

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

2016-09-16 8:54 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:

Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these should be factored out separately.

I really like the one liners that you can find im some method comments, like in Color class>>#wheel:

if you are new to pharo and start exploring the system, it makes fun to see these little one lines and

just execute it. (even if they aren't onelines like in some method in class Form).

Me too and what I like is that there are coupled to the method.
I find a method and I guess it will help me
and bam I read the example and I'm sure it is or not what I'm looking for.

My belief is that we have an IDE able to track metadata (here, examples) along with methods, and that there is no need to play with syntax extensions (which are a way of adding metadata to programming languages stuck in the file concept of the 60's).

In short, a nice, OO way of adding information about a method / class / tag / package that the IDE knows how to relate to the code.

Having the class comment pane open in Nautilus is already a step towards doing that.

Regards,

Thierry

Stef

Cheers,
Doru

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Every thing should have the right to be different."

Ben Coman

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Thierry Goubier
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> 2016-09-16 8:54 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>
>>> Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these
>>> should be factored out separately.
>>
>>
>> I really like the one liners that you can find im some method comments,
>> like in Color class>>#wheel:
>> if you are new to pharo and start exploring the system, it makes fun to
>> see these little one lines and
>> just execute it. (even if they aren't onelines like in some method in
>> class Form).
>>
>>
>> Me too and what I like is that there are coupled to the method.
>> I find a method and I guess it will help me
>> and bam I read the example and I'm sure it is or not what I'm looking for.
>
>
> My belief is that we have an IDE able to track metadata (here, examples)
> along with methods, and that there is no need to play with syntax extensions
> (which are a way of adding metadata to programming languages stuck in the
> file concept of the 60's).
>
> In short, a nice, OO way of adding information about a method / class / tag
> / package that the IDE knows how to relate to the code.
>
> Having the class comment pane open in Nautilus is already a step towards
> doing that.

So another way to look at keeping example/tests close to the methods
is for the Browser code pane to have tabs [Source] [Examples] [Tests]
[Class Comment] where maybe [Tests] lists every test containing the
selection from the method pane. Adding these same to GTDebugger
(which already has a [Source] tab) would improve inter-tool
consistency.

Spare vertical space for the code-pane tabs might be obtained if the
<claass> button is replaced by a class/instance treeview protocol-pane
tree view, then <Class> button goes away, the <Hier.> button could
move above the class-pane leaving a spare row for the code pane tabs
to sit.

Attached is a rough mockup.

cheers -ben

Mockup-CodepaneTabs.png (169K) Download Attachment

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-4

Hi All,

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>>
>> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
>> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> What do you think?
> I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
>
>> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
>
> it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>
> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>
> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> too limited to express code.

I think that's not a safe conclusion. We know from Igor's use of Kieran arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays. S expressions work for lisp.

In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? It would be so easy to make this work well.

The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:

<expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

2016-09-16 18:42 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:

Hi All,

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>>
>> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
>> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> What do you think?
> I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
>
>> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
>
> it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>
> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>
> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> too limited to express code.

I think that's not a safe conclusion. We know from Igor's use of Kieran arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays. S expressions work for lisp.

In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? It would be so easy to make this work well.

We can try this as well. And it is far more easier to work with this expressions if they are pragma arguments, than to parse the comment to find some code within.

On the other hand, it looks much nicer if we have the examples right in the method doc. you have some text describing the method, some code, some more text about the reslt.

The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:

<expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>

Yes, I would like to change this anyway, even for literal arrays for ffi, calls like

mouseStateX: x y: y
<primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error: errorCode>
^ self nbCall: #( Uint32 SDL_GetMouseState ( int* x , int* y ) )

this will be reformatted to

mouseStateX: x y: y
<primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error: 'errorCode'>
^ self nbCall: #(#Uint32 #SDL_GetMouseState #(#int #* #x #, #int #* #y))

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ben Coman

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> 2016-09-16 18:42 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> _,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
>> > On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not
>> >>> convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>> >>
>> >> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> >> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is
>> >> a bad idea
>> >> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> >> What do you think?
>> > I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are
>> > not really good...
>> >
>> >> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works
>> >> with a special mode inside the ' '
>> >
>> > it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>> >
>> > Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or
>> > would you add this just for
>> > Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>> >
>> > I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the
>> > problem, as they are far
>> > too limited to express code.
>>
>> I think that's not a safe conclusion. We know from Igor's use of Kieran
>> arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that
>> arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays. S
>> expressions work for lisp.
>>
>> In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays
>> in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful. Why
>> throw the baby out with the bath water? It would be so easy to make this
>> work well.
>
>
> We can try this as well. And it is far more easier to work with this
> expressions if they are pragma arguments, than to parse the comment to find
> some code within.
> On the other hand, it looks much nicer if we have the examples right in the
> method doc. you have some text describing the method, some code, some more
> text about the reslt.
>
>
>>
>>
>> The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that
>> the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:
>>
>> <expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>
>>
>
> Yes, I would like to change this anyway, even for literal arrays for ffi,
> calls like
>
> mouseStateX: x y: y
> <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error:
> errorCode>
> ^ self nbCall: #( Uint32 SDL_GetMouseState ( int* x , int* y ) )
>
> this will be reformatted to
>
> mouseStateX: x y: y
> <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error:
> 'errorCode'>
> ^ self nbCall: #(#Uint32 #SDL_GetMouseState #(#int #* #x #, #int #* #y))

errr, yuck! Thats not pretty at all. Is there some way to avoid
that? As I've been getting started with FFI its been really nice
visually to see a *direct* correspondence between the C header file
declaration and the in-Image method. Actually I think it would be
useful to go a step further to have positional rather than named
parameters for FFI methods. At the moment the method names still end
up a bit mangled. This seems feasible since currently an
open-round-bracket is invalid syntax if not preceded by an assignment
or colon.

e.g.
myvar := (a + b). "okay"
self setVar: (a + b). "okay"
self setVar( a + b ). "currently invalid syntax - but could could
represent an FFI call"

defined like...
SomeLibrary class >> setVar( newValue )
^ self ffiCall: #( int setVar ( int newValue )

But I expect its not something we'd want to leap into.

cheers -ben

Henrik Sperre Johansen

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

On 17 Sep 2016, at 4:17 , Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:

2016-09-16 18:42 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:

Hi All,

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>
wrote:

We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not
convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .

I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is
a bad idea
but I really want to have literal programming.
What do you think?
I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are
not really good...

If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works
with a special mode inside the ' '

it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?

Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or
would you add this just for
Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.

I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the
problem, as they are far
too limited to express code.

I think that's not a safe conclusion. We know from Igor's use of Kieran
arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that
arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays. S
expressions work for lisp.

In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays
in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful. Why
throw the baby out with the bath water? It would be so easy to make this
work well.

We can try this as well. And it is far more easier to work with this
expressions if they are pragma arguments, than to parse the comment to find
some code within.
On the other hand, it looks much nicer if we have the examples right in the
method doc. you have some text describing the method, some code, some more
text about the reslt.

The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that
the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:

    <expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>

Yes, I would like to change this anyway, even for literal arrays for ffi,
calls like

mouseStateX: x y: y
   <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error:
errorCode>
   ^ self nbCall: #( Uint32 SDL_GetMouseState ( int* x , int* y ) )

this will be reformatted to

mouseStateX: x y: y
   <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error:
'errorCode'>
   ^ self nbCall: #(#Uint32 #SDL_GetMouseState #(#int #* #x #, #int #* #y))

errr, yuck! Thats not pretty at all. Is there some way to avoid
that? As I've been getting started with FFI its been really nice
visually to see a *direct* correspondence between the C header file
declaration and the in-Image method.

+1, that's about the main thought behind it...

As long as the only required use of a # inside of literal arrays is differentiating whether something is a literal string or symbol, changing to format *all* symbols using it seems somewhat overzealous.

Personally, if a solution using method properties/+ browser improvements to show/create them in a good way is out of the question,

I have a weakness for using empty blocks as method-local, syntax-highlighted code comments (at least compared to special comment syntax, or pragmas backed by a whole literal -> ST parser).

Though lately, the code critic (rightly, and very usefully, in the cases where it's a user error) points out they are dead code, and the IR optimizes them out entirely, meaning they miss out on senders/implementors/refactorings functionality. (Full blocks would potentially let us change the IR to leave them alone, put them in the literal slot and be searchable, at no additional runtime-cost/use in bytecodes)

Cheers,

Henry

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment

EstebanLM

Re: [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2

On 16 Sep 2016, at 21:45, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:

2016-09-16 18:42 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:
Hi All,

_,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:50 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> We can change it back and maybe add support for the reformatter to not convert it to the literal array #(3 #+ 4) .
>>
>> I do not know in fact this is why I asked :)
>> Now may be my idea to use pragma to get something like pythondoctest is a bad idea
>> but I really want to have literal programming.
>> What do you think?
> I like the idea to show examples/tests close to code, but pragmas are not really good...
>
>> If we have ' ' then it would be good that the syntax higlighter works with a special mode inside the ' '
>
> it is just a string. How do you know that it contains code?
>
> Would you highlight all string in all code as if it contained code? Or would you add this just for
> Pragmas? But even there, strings are string, not code.
>
> I think we can conclude that pragmas are not a good solution to the problem, as they are far
> too limited to express code.

I think that's not a safe conclusion. We know from Igor's use of Kieran arrays for C signatures in the UFFI, and can easily extrapolate here, that arbitrary Smalltalk expressions /can/ be expressed in literal arrays. S expressions work for lisp.

In this particular case special casing pretty printing of literal arrays in pragmas would be all that's needed to make the code look beautiful. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? It would be so easy to make this work well.

We can try this as well. And it is far more easier to work with this expressions if they are pragma arguments, than to parse the comment to find some code within.
On the other hand, it looks much nicer if we have the examples right in the method doc. you have some text describing the method, some code, some more text about the reslt.

The only thing I'd do would be to print like this to make it clear that the argument t is a literal Array and not some magic form of code:

<expr: #(3 + 4) result: 7>

Yes, I would like to change this anyway, even for literal arrays for ffi, calls like

mouseStateX: x y: y
    <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error: errorCode>
    ^ self nbCall: #( Uint32 SDL_GetMouseState ( int* x , int* y ) )

this will be reformatted to

mouseStateX: x y: y
    <primitive: #primitiveNativeCall module: #NativeBoostPlugin error: 'errorCode'>
    ^ self nbCall: #(#Uint32 #SDL_GetMouseState #(#int #* #x #, #int #* #y))

this is ugly… also, it breaks the spirit of UFFI where the purpose of using the array literals to give a feeling close to the C method.

I already told before I disagree with this reformatting…. So no, I’m absolutely against forcing such kind of format.

Esteban

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>