Beginners December 2008

beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org

31 participants
30 discussions

Changes file - has reached its size limit.
by Pillar, Richard 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

Hi all, I am getting a message when trying to save the changes I have made to a method :- Error: You have reached the size limit of the changes file. You must take action to reduce it..... I have tried 'doing' the following - 'Smalltalk condenseChanges' - but this came back with lots of errors. I would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction so I could get this sorted. Thanks Richard This e-mail has come from Experian, the only business to have been twice named the UK's 'Business of the Year’ =================================================================================== Information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other binding commitment through the use of this electronic communication unless it is issued in accordance with the Experian Limited standard terms and conditions of purchase or other express written agreement between Experian Limited and the recipient. Although Experian has taken reasonable steps to ensure that this communication and any attachments are free from computer virus, you are advised to take your own steps to ensure that they are actually virus free. Companies Act information: Registered name: Experian Limited Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG80 1TH Place of registration: England and Wales Registered number: 653331

1 0

Re: Method Finder puzzles
by Jerome Peace 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

[Newbies] Method Finder puzzles tjohnson at iwu.eduSat Dec 20 03:31:10 UTC 2008 > >Hi, > >Could be a pointless question, but maybe an answer would teach me something about >syntax. > >I found some things that I can type into Method Finder which show up as results, but have no >senders and no implementors. These things are ~, ^, #, %, (, <>, and ** . I understand why >the single-character entries could be exceptional, but the <> and ** puzzle me. > >Why is this? I can type in >>>, ***, &%, or ^^ and not get them back as a result. > >) is in a league of its own -- it shows up as a result, and when you click on it, you get a >subscript out of bounds error. > >Maybe this is all just Method Finder magic and I should slowly step away. > I played with Method Finder very lightly. Then I found that Message Names Finder was much easier to use. 5 years after that discovery I found the short cut to use it. Selected a phrase fragment and type Cmd-Shif-W. The Message Name Finder will appear with all the selectors containing that fragment. It is not as focused as Method Finder. Still, personally, I would rather make a guess at the name of a selector and take my chances with the list I get. The Method Finder takes maintenance and updating to work. And there doesn't seem to be anyone who cares to do that. I think there is a rule that anything with complicated dependencies in squeak (our branch) tends to break. Consequence of too many cooks who add ingredients w/o understanding the previous makeup of the stew. Anyway try the Message Name Finder and see if it serves. Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace

2 1

Method Finder puzzles
by tjohnson＠iwu.edu 20 Dec '08

20 Dec '08

Hi, Could be a pointless question, but maybe an answer would teach me something about syntax. I found some things that I can type into Method Finder which show up as results, but have no senders and no implementors. These things are ~, ^, #, %, (, <>, and ** . I understand why the single-character entries could be exceptional, but the <> and ** puzzle me. Why is this? I can type in >>>, ***, &%, or ^^ and not get them back as a result. ) is in a league of its own -- it shows up as a result, and when you click on it, you get a subscript out of bounds error. Maybe this is all just Method Finder magic and I should slowly step away. Thanks, TimJ

1 0

[OT] If programming languages were religions...
by Klaus D. Witzel 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

[... then] "Smalltalk is the ancient Egyptian religion. The Initiated know it already had all the important concepts working long ago and most popular modern languages are incomplete subsets of it that obsess over artificial restrictions of their own creation while entirely missing the reason their code exists in the first place. And the heart of your code will be judged against the Feather of Truth before it can join the message passing afterlife." ----------- This was slashdotted, originated here - http://www.aegisub.net/2008/12/if-programming-languages-were-religions.html Could nor resist mentioning for the squeak-list records ;) /Klaus -- "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it". Albert Einstein

2 3

Squeak Guilt
by Ryan Zerby 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

I'm in a position where I want to learn Squeak/Smalltalk because it's cool, but I find myself thinking that I should spend my time working on something that might actually advance my career. I used to be a Java Programmer, but am now a Build Engineer, so I don't directly program anymore. I feel that I should be keeping my Java skills up... but that just isn't as spiffy Anyone else in this boat? Is there a Squeak Support Group? A 12 step program? Anyone have a good rationale why I can go ahead and spend my time on Squeak without feeling guilty? :) :)

9 17

Saving DNU for later
by tjohnson＠iwu.edu 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi, I was saving a few DNU debug opportunities "to be investigated later" just by minimizing their windows. Today though I have been clearing out cruft. It appears that my few DNU saves are holding on to some objects I would like to get rid of, but I don't want to get rid of these DNUs! How can I save them for later? If I "fileOut" from the debug stack's menu, it only files out the class method. I could "mail out bug report," but then I think it will go to the squeak-dev mailing list and people will yell at me. I could get out a piece of paper and a pencil, but that would take a while. I guess I could take a screenshot... I could have sworn there was some way to just get the stack as text and save to a file, wasn't there? Thanks, TimJ [super-ideally, I could just hit a button, and the issue would be sent to someone who cares, or to Mantis, or into some other bit bucket, so I'm not sitting here pretending I can debug Morphic or streams...]

2 3

Squeak port
by pascal.vollmer＠nexgo.de 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi, I'd like to port Squeak to an embedded PowerPC/Unix-system (Freescale PowerPC MPC5200BB/Linux). Do you know where I could find documentation or advice? Kind regards Pascal Pascal Vollmer Email: pascal.vollmer(a)ieee.org Jetzt komfortabel bei Arcor-Digital TV einsteigen: Mehr Happy Ends, mehr Herzschmerz, mehr Fernsehen! Erleben Sie 50 digitale TV Programme und optional 60 Pay TV Sender, einen elektronischen Programmführer mit Movie Star Bewertungen von TV Movie. Außerdem, aktuelle Filmhits und spannende Dokus in der Arcor-Videothek. Infos unter www.arcor.de/tv

3 2

Re: LFs in method source, Mantis #3766
by Jerome Peace 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

[Newbies] LFs in method source, Mantis #3766 tjohnson at iwu.edu tjohnson at iwu.edu >Sun Dec 14 03:02:30 UTC 2008 >Hi, > >I know that this issue is hardly important, except the perfectionist in me keeps making me >want to go through these methods and remove all the LFs. Certainly there is a better way to >deal with this problem. :) This has proven to be one of those worthy problems that proves its worth by fighting back. Squeak is cross-platform. Different platforms (windows, linuxes, and macs) each have a different preference for line endings. Few programmers know there even is a distinction to be made. Indeed the lf's showing up as square boxes were an attempt to bring awareness to the distinction so it could be addressed. In that, it is successful as your note points out. The two pieces of the cure would be to 1) Reformat the sources and changes files. There is one source file per version (plus 3.9 sources). It would be confusing to change old sources. I believe the release team for 3.9 made an attempt to clean up sources at that point. 2) Prevent or cause to be reformated any code submissions with the wrong line endings. This would be problematical because submitters are usually not aware that they are not submitting properly line-ended code. And in the scheme of things release teams/harvesters are not in a mood to pay attentions to this level of annoyance. So this remains a low level annoyance not because it could not be addressed but because no way of addressing it is simple enough to justify the effort for this low priority of problem. (And as I said the problem of tends to reoccur as new fixes are proposed and adopted.) It would not be bad to have a test that if passed would assure that all line endings in source and change text were normal. That would be the first step. The workaround would be to let the image stop showing the distinction via the square box. This would not solve the problem but it would lessen the annoyances. Lessening the annoyance would prolong the problem unless the sunit test above is created first. Hmmm. > >Mantis #3766 says that all LFs were removed from method sources as of version 3.9. But >how come when I am browsing many methods in 3.10.2, in standard source view, >(Time>>#print24, for example), LFs still show up as little empty boxes? When pretty- >printing or color-printing they are not shown. Those two recreate the method from its compilation. They supply line endings of a more standard nature. > But shouldn't these LFs be gone after this fix >was applied? I have not tried re-applying the fix. > The fix would consist of cleaning up the sources and changes text file and releasing new ones. It would also require rejecting new source with the lf problem until those sources were reformatted. This would be a good fix to batch with a clean up of the use of _ for assignment since that also requires a simple(?) reformatting of code. >Could something have happened between 3.9 and 3.10, possibly involving Mantis #6173, in >which certain files may have been re-loaded into the image, and correct line-end conversion >not done? > >Thanks, >TimJ >

1 0

LFs in method source, Mantis #3766
by tjohnson＠iwu.edu 14 Dec '08

14 Dec '08

Hi, I know that this issue is hardly important, except the perfectionist in me keeps making me want to go through these methods and remove all the LFs. Certainly there is a better way to deal with this problem. :) Mantis #3766 says that all LFs were removed from method sources as of version 3.9. But how come when I am browsing many methods in 3.10.2, in standard source view, (Time>>#print24, for example), LFs still show up as little empty boxes? When pretty- printing or color-printing they are not shown. But shouldn't these LFs be gone after this fix was applied? I have not tried re-applying the fix. Could something have happened between 3.9 and 3.10, possibly involving Mantis #6173, in which certain files may have been re-loaded into the image, and correct line-end conversion not done? Thanks, TimJ [ps - Thanks everybody for the ordination code!]

1 0

A browser for the WordNet lexical db in Smalltalk, anybody?
by Klaus D. Witzel 13 Dec '08

13 Dec '08

Hi list, has anyone started with/plans for a browser for a WordNet lexical db in Smalltalk? I checked their Prolog formatted files, - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/obtain actually read them into a Squeak .image; they need only a handful of memory MB (7.5, strings as yet not symbolized) plus less than 10MB of disk space if gloss texts would be stored in the .changes file. Also, if anyone already has (or had) ideas for a GUI for a WordNet browser in Squeak please let me know (!) I cannot say I like their basic Web interface (it has nothing that a Smalltalk browser offers) - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o0=1&o1=1&r=1&s=small+talk&i=1&h=10… and think that can be done better for local use, for example in class rooms (and of course when authoring documentation for Squeak ;) but, unlikely for the OLPC because of the footprint. Thanks in advance for your feedback. /Klaus -- "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it". Albert Einstein

2 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Beginners December 2008