Also note that there has been a huge effort in Pharo to document
classes. Maybe you can find low hanging fruits there...

Nicolas

2012/8/18 dimitris chloupis <thekilon at yahoo.co.uk>:
> thank you both for your replies, I registred in source.squeak and I am
> waiting for the approval. Regarding latest image , isn't squeak update
> (Squeak main memu)  capable of updating to the latest ? I like the inbox
> idea, this way I can feel safe that I wont mess anything up.
>
> Is there a guideline of documenting classes (html link , article , pdf etc)
> ?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Frank Shearar-3 [via Smalltalk]
> <ml-node+s1294792n4644525h48 at n4.nabble.com>
> To: kilon <thekilon at yahoo.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012, 14:00
> Subject: Re: How may I contribute in documenting classes ?
>
> On 18 August 2012 08:29, dimitris chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I am using squeak, I am learning it and I am loving it. I know its not
>> perfect, I know it has it faults , but I feel I finally found an
>> enviroment
>> that I can do what I always want "live coding"
>>
>> As you can imagine as a begineer I spent a lot of time in system browser
>> and
>> I am suprised by the lack of documentation to some basic classes. Now I am
>> probably the last person to qualify as a person to document those classes
>> since my experience is very limited with Squeak and smalltalk.  But I feel
>> that some documentation even if its a partial one , is better than no
>> documentation. And since I am already reading so much of the souce , why
>> not
>> save people's time and mine (I can foget easily the code I read and so a
>> documentation string can help me remember) by adding documentation strings
>> to classes and their methods.
>>
>> The only things I dont know is how to make those documentations port back
>> to
>> squeak standard distribution. I assume would need some commit rights to
>> the
>> squeak source ?
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that there are a whole pile of things in the
> base image desperately needing comments. Your commits will be most
> welcome!
>
> Add your class comments, and use Monticello to save your edited
> packages (as shown in the Monticello Browser) to the Inbox.
>
> I don't have an image close at hand, but you should have the Inbox as
> one of the repositories in the right hand pane of the Monticello
> Browser. (If it's not there, we ought to add it as part of the
> standard released image, so let me know.) If it's not there, right
> click the "trunk" repository, select "edit repository info" and copy
> that chunk of text. Cancel the dialog, and press the "+ Repository"
> button. Paste in the text, and change "trunk" to "inbox".
>
> Sometimes when you select the package you want to save you don't see
> the repository you want to push to in the right hand pane. I often
> find it easier to just save the package to my package-cache repository
> and, from the version browser that pops up, just Copy the version to
> whichever repo I want.
>
> Once it's in the Inbox, the core devs can have a look at the class
> comment, review it, ask you to change some things if necessary, and
> they'll take care of pushing the comments into the Trunk.
>
> frank
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: dimitris chloupis <[hidden email]>
>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012, 10:09
>> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
>>
>> First thank you all for your answers. Suffice to say I have installed FFI
>> from source.squeak , Win32 refuses to install for me(I am on MacoOSX if
>> that
>> is of any importance [Lion]).
>>
>> The argument that "we dont include FFI because we dont want to encourage
>> people to use it instead of smalltalk" is something that does not convince
>> me. FFIs exist included in implementations of all languages I have
>> programmed with Python , Java, Common lisp (ccl) , Free Pascal etc . I was
>> a
>> python developer so far, ctypes which is the interface of python itself is
>> used exactly because ( though its way slower than writing C extensions )
>> it
>> allows coders to stick with python and make code easier to port across
>> platforms. In my experience coders dont use FFIs just for the fun for it,
>> because they are not fun , they can be a pain in the hat. Also a coder
>> preferring FFI from the comfort of the amazing smalltalk debugger is
>> something I have a very hard time imagining. People use FFIs because well
>> ,
>> they want to acess a functionality that the existing libraries just do not
>> offer and that functionality exist on OS level anyway that will require
>> some
>> mangling with C. So no I dont think FFI will ever reduce the portability
>> of
>> squeak or that FFI libraries will start to pop up like mushrooms.
>>
>> Its not such an issue for me because : a) I can provide an image that will
>> have FFI included b) unlike python squeak distribution system (monitcello)
>> not only does not suck but seems to work quite well.
>>
>> " Many applications do not need FFI"  that could be said for a lot of
>> smalltalk libraries already included with squeak. For example I have not
>> seen many apps in squeak source make use of etoys ( I love etoys by the
>> way
>> and one of the reason I prefer Squeak from Pharo and is potentially
>> necessary for a project I am making). I dont think that is a good excuse
>> as
>> well. Libraries dont need to be super popular to be included in a language
>> implementations they are included to offer a more "complete" experience to
>> the code as long they provide "basic" functionality and not something that
>> is highly specialised.
>>
>> In any case I asked the question not because I want to force the inclusion
>> of FFIs but because its the first time in last decade or so that I use a
>> language implementation that does not come included with an FFI and tham
>> made me curious about the reason behind this. In any case I love what you
>> have done with Squeak, I really enjoy using it and even though it lacks
>> documentation in several areas it really is easy to understand what is
>> going
>> on because of the overall architecture and the elegance of tools like
>> inspector, and browser. Let me state all the above is my personal opinion
>> and not an effort to play it smart or being rude, just geniune curiosity.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]>
>> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>; The general-purpose
>> Squeak developers list <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012, 21:21
>> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
>>
>> On 16.08.2012, at 22:28, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Many applications do not need FFI, so it including would add
>>> unnecessary (in many cases) bits to the footprint.
>>>
>>> FFI is a one-click install from SqueakMap, which can be accessed
>>> programmatically via the Installer class, which is included with
>>> Squeak.
>>>
>>> HTH.
>>
>> Right. Also, if we included it by default, people might think it is okay
>> to
>> use for providing basic functions. If FFI calls started to creep into the
>> basic image we would lose the big advantage of platform independence.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM, kilon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I was wondering why I need to install FFI and why it is not included by
>>>> default. Any programming language I have used included at least a single
>>>> FFI
>>>> with it in its implementations or at least something similar.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a specfic reason why its not included ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.world.st/Why-FFI-is-not-included-with-latest-squeak-tp4644264.html
>>>> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://forum.world.st/Why-FFI-is-not-included-with-latest-squeak-tp4644264p4644525.html
> To unsubscribe from Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?, click
> here.
> NAML
>
>
>
>
>