<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Nicolas Cellier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
2010/9/21 Nicolas Cellier <<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> 2010/9/21 Casey Ransberger <<a href="mailto:casey.obrien.r@gmail.com">casey.obrien.r@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> Currently we have three more errors than we had in the last build that I<br>
>> rolled. I'm looking at a run on #10532.<br>
>><br>
>> In general I'd recon it's an improvement, except for the errors (I don't<br>
>> mind new failures as long as the total number of tests has gone up by an<br>
>> equal or greater amount, but errors just give me the willies.) Also, the<br>
>> errors are to do with some stuff that looks like it could be hairy. Blocks<br>
>> and finalization. If these can be blessed by more experienced folks than me<br>
>> as "not that big a deal" then I would be quite happy to roll a build<br>
>> tomorrow night.<br>
>> Here's the numbers:<br>
>><br>
>> 2803 run, 2762 passes, 9 expected failures, 28 failures, 4 errors, 0<br>
>> unexpected passes<br>
>><br>
>> 25 new tests<br>
>><br>
>> 9 expected failures (no change)<br>
>><br>
>> 28 failures (2 more than the previous image)<br>
>><br>
>> 4 errors (3 more than the previous image)<br>
>><br>
>> Errors:<br>
>><br>
>> EventManagerTest>><br>
>><br>
>> #testBlockReceiverNoArgs<br>
>><br>
>> #testBlockReceiverOneArg<br>
>><br>
>> #testBlockReceiverTwoArgs<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Oh, I see, it was me introducing clean-up from Juan for<br>
> <a href="http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7352" target="_blank">http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7352</a> in<br>
> <a href="http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Kernel-nice.482.mcz" target="_blank">http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Kernel-nice.482.mcz</a><br>
><br>
> Obviously, WeakActionSequence now restricts element class to<br>
> MessageSend and WeakMessageSend...<br>
> I see three solutions:<br>
><br>
> 1) implement the 3 compatibility messages into classes of "valuable"<br>
> objects (like BlockClosure)<br>
> 2) wrap those valuable object into a (MessageSend receiver:<br>
> valuableObject selector: #value) at creation time<br>
> 3) revert the changes... and reintroduce the bug :(<br>
><br>
> I don't like 1 because it's spreading very specific messages in the system.<br>
> I don't like 3 because there's enough bugs in the image.<br>
> I much prefer 2)<br>
><br>
> Any other idea?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>On the other hand there is already a protocol 'events-support' in<br>
BlockClosure with two messages #asMinimalRepresentation #isValid, so<br>
1) was the previous option adopted in Squeak.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1. But is 'events-support' correct or is 'finalization support' better?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Note that the second message #isValid is not used anymore after Juan's<br>
clean-up and could be removed.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Nicolas<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> Nicolas<br>
><br>
>> WeakFinalizersTest>>#testNewFinalizationSupported<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Casey Ransberger<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>