Squeak-dev April 2002

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

195 participants
665 discussions

Re: Behaviors vs Modules
by Anthony Hannan 24 May '02

24 May '02

Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel(a)merlintec.com> wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2002 23:38, Anthony Hannan wrote: > > - A Smalltalk expression now knows, via the selectors it calls, which > > protocols and corresponding default behaviors it depends on. So > > starting from a Smalltalk expression we can trace selectors and > > methods recursively and load all default behaviors that will be > > needed. > > Two slight problems: > > 1) #perform: perform: will have to take a selector object that already knows its protocol instead of just a symbol. The selector's protocol will be loaded at runtime when the perform is triggered. > 2) if #foo is used in only one protocol in your system, you don't > have to say which one that is, right? Now imagine that you send your > module to me and I load it into my system which also has a #foo in only > one protocol, but it happens to be a different protocol from yours! The compiled method will have the selector object "foo" in its literals which knows its protocol, not the symbol #foo. So if you send the compiled method to another image (via image segments) then the protocol will go with it. If you just send the source code, your right, "foo" will be looked up in the new environment. But this is the same problem we have with globals now. How do I know "String" in my image means the same as "String" in your image? Cheers, Anthony

3 2

JPEGReadWriter2Plugin - Where can I get a Win32 binary?
by Daniel Erasmus 09 May '02

09 May '02

Hi, Where can I get hold of the JPEGReadWriter2Plugin DLL file for Windows? Thank you, Daniel Erasmus

16 37

Re: Squeak 3.2 UNIX - A newbie's plead
by Martín Altobello 06 May '02

06 May '02

"Cees de Groot" <cg(a)cdegroot.com> escribió en el mensaje news:<a9gsgt$8td$1(a)home.cdegroot.com>... > Richard A. O'Keefe <ok(a)cs.otago.ac.nz> said: > >ftp to st.cs.uiuc.edu > >cd to /pub/Smalltalk/Squeak/3.2gamma/unix > >ls > > > >There is only a 'debian'. I have SPARC Solaris 2.8. > >What do I do? Or is it too soon to try 3.2? > > > There's a tarball with the sources as well - it should contain the full code > you need to build a VM. Please upload the result when you built it ;-) Yes please! I can only say that I am even newbi-er in Linux! and that the building the VM process is a bit, well, scary. We've been testing Nebraska and the EtoyListener and Sender at SqueakRos, sending live objects thru an intranet from and to Windows/Mac systems!! We'd love to test it in Linux too. I know that an rpm would be too much to ask :D ... but could some good and kind soul please (please) upload a VM for Linux Intel? I guarantee this action will give you good karma for at least a week. :) Saludos, Martín

9 10

Re: straw-man 3.2 default preferences
by Henrik Gedenryd 03 May '02

03 May '02

> (restartAlsoProceeds true) I suggest that this should be off by default. When it is off, you can easily proceed by issing a cmd-P, but when it is on, you cannot obtain the opposite effect. It is also more helpful to beginners not to immediately proceed. Currently it is "true" because that is how it used to be when this improvement didin't exist, and I don't think that is a higher priority. > (alternativeScrollbarLook true) > > (roundedMenuCorners true) > (roundedWindowCorners true) > I suggest that all of these should have the effect of setting rounded corners not to be used. It is far from obvious to beginners that these hog a lot of performance. On the other hand, the added value of having rounded corners is--well I just don't know any but there has to be something I'm sure. I assume that Doug's menu improvements have gone in, I haven't used 3.2g in a while. Henrik

13 23

Re: Is BC worth the image format switch?
by Anthony Hannan 03 May '02

03 May '02

--- Roger Vossler <rvossler(a)qwest.net> wrote: > I read the material concerning Block Closures (BC) on the GaTech web > site, but it's a bit beyond my meager understanding. Sorry it is just technical, hopefully the answers below will help. Others may want to add to my answers. > I have a couple of questions: > > 1) Why is BC so important? BC speeds up the Interpreter and correctly interprets the scopes of blocks. To elaborate on the second point: Blocks holding their own temps (block closures) is more correct from a scoping point of view than method contexts holding the temps for its embedded blocks (current Squeak). For example: #(a b c) do: [:s | [Transcript show: s] fork] will print 'abc' in the BC version but 'ccc' in the current Squeak version. The BC version is correctly scoped because the block variable s has a different binding on each iteration. However, in the current Squeak version the block variable s has only one binding held in the home method context and just changes value on each iteration. By the time the forked blocks are executed s is holding the last value. > 2) What does one gain from this capability? You gain correctly scoped blocks, which allows you to more easily create truely independent functions/blocks. Sometimes this is preferred over creating special small "function" objects or using additional methods just so you have another scope to bind temps to. For examples of sophisticated uses of blocks that would not work in the current Squeak implementation unless they were rewritten using more methods/classes, see the block closure test cases in the BC image or on the BC swiki page in the Convert section. > 3) Do most other Smalltalk systems have this capability? Yes. > 4) Is this capability "nice to have" or is it "really essential"? It is not essential since code like the example above can be rewritten to use an intermediate method to provide the missing scope. For example, the following will work correctly in the current Squeak implementation: UndefinedObject compile: 'forkWriting: s [Transcript show: s] fork'. #(a b c) do: [:s | self forkWriting: s] BC just makes it much easier to make these blocks independently scoped. > 5) If BC is "really essential", how has Squeak managed to get along > without it thus far? Block closure is not essential as noted above. But it does force people to sometimes write code the long way like the example above. > I'm not looking for detailed technical information, but rather, an > indication of why the Squeak community needs to make this change > which apparently has big impacts on image formats, VMs, et al. As > someone noted: we don't want to do this more than once. Two main reasons why Squeak needs BC are: 1. Block closures conform to the scoping rules of [...] (BC is more correct). 2. This BC implementation is faster. Since the interpreter had to be changed anyway to accomodate block closures I took the opportunity to make further changes to speed up the whole interpreting process. Either of these may be important enough, but together, I think they (plus possibly other VI4 enhancements) makes it worth the pain to switch the community to a new image format. Of course, we can make the switch as painless as possible by providing the image converter with the new VM and have the new VM trigger the converter when it tries to open an old image. The major problem is that image conversion takes a long time (about an hour on a 3.2 image on my 533MHz Intel). Also trying to open a new image with an old VM will just report a bad format message. Cheers, Anthony __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com

9 15

Re: How do you define "object-oriented"?
by Dan Rozenfarb 03 May '02

03 May '02

Jecel Assumpcao wrote: > I don't see any practical difference > between "inheritance" and "delegation" Me neither. I pointed that out just to make a difference between what Self has and what is commonly referred by inheritance (including Wegner=B4s classification), that is, Class Inheritance. Anyway, I see inheritance as a useful, although not mandatory feature. > > With this definition, Smalltalk is not *pure* OO. > > Because of the classes? See "Smalltalk with Examplars" or CoDA for > Smalltalks with classless objects. No. With "definition" I meant the previous one: "Objects communicating through message passing". One example: Smalltalk accesses variables directly, not by message passing. OK, it=B4s not a big deal, but illustrates my point. > But I prefer not to fight for any particular meaning of "OO" I tend to agree. It is not all that important having an exact definition. But my scientific spirit makes me love the purist approach that led to great research pursuing a clean and pure OO (such as the Self project). This utopic and minimalist sense is much related with simplicity, that is one of the things I love the most about objects, and what IMHO made Smalltalk what it is. Regards, Dan Rozenfarb __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com

5 6

Which version of 3.2?
by Roger Vossler 02 May '02

02 May '02

Hi Gang, First, has 3.2 been finalized yet? I'm using a Macintosh with OSX and want to use a carbonized version of Squeak, since the cocoa version is not apparently not as far along. From the UIUC archives, I see that there is a Squeak3.2gamma-4827 (4/18/02) and a squeak3.2.3b2-mac-carbon-vm.sit (2/8/02). Is this a good combination? Or, is squeak3.2.6b8-mac-vm.sit (3/26/02) a better choice? Or, do I have to try different combinations until I find something that works? :-) Finally, how far apart are the carbon and cocoa versions at this point in time? Cheers, Roger.....

4 3

[BUG] MailMessage/MIMEDocument parsing doesn't work beyond the first level.
by Ken Causey 02 May '02

02 May '02

I've been trying to parse email messages with more than the simplest of structures and can't seem to get anywhere. VM: Linux 3.2-4743 #1 [oss audio, xshm] Image: 3.2gamma-4843 Consider an example: Take an email with an attachment, and forward it as an attachment. Diagram: a Email b Body c Forwarded Email d Body of Forwarded Email e Attachment The problem is that no matter what I do, I can't get to the attachment, part e. Or for that matter the body of the forwared email, part d. I can see 2 ways of going about this: 1. The body of a MailMessage instantiated from the original email message (MailMessage class>>from:) returns a MIMEDocument whose parts message returns an Array with 2 elements. The first element is a MailMessage whose body is a MIMEDocuement containing the text labelled as part b above. The second element is also a MailMessage whose body is a MIMEDocument includes all of c-e. However, this MIMEDocument's parts message returns an empty array. I'm stopped at node c. 2. Again, instantiate a MailMessage using MailMessage class>>from: from the original email, use MailMessage>>makeMultipart and MailMessage>>parts returns an OrderedCollection instance with 2 elements. The first element is a MailMessage, again MailMessage>>makeMultiPart and MailMessage>>parts on it returns an Array with only one element, it being a MailMessage whose text is part b. If you run makeMultipart and parts on this MailMessage, you keep getting one element Arrays with the same text. I guess we can consider this a recursion limit criterion. Now, take the second element of the two element Array returned by the first level of makeMultipart/parts. This is a MailMessage whose text contains all of c-e. Recurse with makeMultipart/parts again and we get an Array with ONLY one element, a matching MailMessage. Continued recursion never visits d or e. I would really appreciate it if someone can point out my mistake/misunderstanding here. Otherwise I have to consider the MIME system to be less than useful. Ken Causey

2 6

Remote access to Celeste db?
by Aaron J Reichow 02 May '02

02 May '02

I'd like to switch to Celeste. What has kept me back from doing so is that there's no lo-tek way to access my old email remotely. Which is why I continue to use pine. By lo-tek, I mean some way that's accessible by just telnet/ssh. Up to this point, I considered eventually that I would eventually create a telnet server for Squeak, and get my email via a generic object hierarchy browser, or something primitively like pine. I'm not sure why it's escaped me, but it would be rather easy to write up a Comanche module that spit back my email over the web. Easy to send email out too. I suppose that'd make it mostly a real web-mail client, but such a single-user system should be easy to set up. Has anyone started on a project like this, or should I go ahead? I assume there would be others interested in using it? Regards, Aaron Aaron Reichow :: UMD ACM Pres :: http://www.d.umn.edu/~reic0024/ "the end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization. " :: r. w. emerson

5 7

[BUG] Red halo menu near right edge "autoselects"
by Ken Causey 01 May '02

01 May '02

Click the red halo button for the flap closest to the right edge of the world. The menu pops up under the mouse cursor and if you don't hold down the mouse button, then the menu item under the mouse cursor receives the mouse up event. Quick tests with other morphs similarly placed revealed no problem; in those cases the menu popped up to the left of the mouse cursor. Image: 3.2gamma-4811 VM: Linux 3.2-4743 #1 [oss audio, xshm] from deb. Ken Causey

2 2

Jump to page: