Hi!
MooseGroup has #sorted: and #sort:
What about keeping just one?
Especially since
MooseGroup>>sort: aBlock
self sorted: aBlock
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi all,
We are using Moose 4.3 and we have lots of problems due to the metamodel changes from 4.1 to 4.3.
For example all my mse files generated in 4.1 are obsolete in 4.3, but we develop tools in 4.3 not compatible with 4.1.
The situation is not really cool, and the message sent by this problem also.
To solve this problem, I would propose to replace the version 4.3 by a version 5.0.
Like that we can build tools to move from version 4.x to 5.x.
And the message is better.
What is your opinion about these changes and what is the impact on the community ?
Thanks
Jannik
Hi,
I would like to update the publications from the moose webpage. It looks like since 2007 there is a drop in publications. This does not sound correct, and indeed it looks like we mostly only have the SCG publications in there.
Would it be possible to get Moose-related publications from Lille, Lugano, and Santiago?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Status: New
Owner: georgega...(a)gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Component-ExternalTools
New issue 531 by tudor.gi...(a)gmail.com: inFusion should export isWrite in
FAMIXAccess
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=531
If it represents an assignment it should look like:
(FAMIX.Access
(isWrite true)
)
Hi,
I would like to promote the idea of projects in Pharo. The concept is simple: we should build new infrastructures that go beyond small fixes and that require the concerted work of multiple people over a longer period of time.
A project has a clear goal, and is led by someone. That someone is not necessarily the one that writes all the code (like we might tend to do it), but simply one that ensures that the project advances, that the different contributions are integrated, and that things are not left at 90%.
I would like to announce the Glamorous Tool project. The goal of this project is to provide a new set of tools for developing with Pharo. It is to be developed on top of Glamour, and it should address at least the followings:
- Coder (ex-System Browser)
- Debugger
- Inspector
- Playground (ex-Workspace - it's not called Workspace anymore because I would like to encourage people not to "work" there)
- Chaser (senders, implementors and references)
The project spans several topics. For example:
- Glamour support
- Morphic enhancements:
--- Proper TextMorph with keybindings and context sensitiveness
--- Collapsable Panes
--- Scalable tabs
--- Parallel rendering
- Suitable models
--- RPackage
--- Code introspection
--- Debugger model
- Testing
--- Because these tools are so critical, they should be robust
--- OB is a good example for the testing part
- Usability
--- Principle: Spawning a window might be easy, but it is not effective
--- Principle: Uniformity
--- Principle: Less concepts are better than many
- Graphic design of skins and icons
- Weak announcements
- Performance
I will lead it, and you are welcome to participate. The today sprint is a good occasion to take a look. The current code can be found at:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'glamoroust';
package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamoroust';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfGlamoroust) perform: #loadDefault.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
Hi all,
I just finished reading 'The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering', which proposes a theory on building and validating visualizations. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/TSE.2009.67 I think it is an excellent paper and I highly reccomend it.
I have a question, for those that have read it, or know about it. Since this proposes a theory where it should be possible to evaluate a given visualization, do you know of any visualization publication that validates itself in this way (instead of the user study ...)? I think it would be a good way out of the user study issue ...
Also, Alex, this theory implies we need much more shapes in Mondrian, as it is one of the visualization variables where Mondrian only offers a few options :-(
--
Johan Fabry
jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Cc: georgeganea
Labels: Milestone-4.4
Comment #1 on issue 474 by tudor.gi...(a)gmail.com: Java Enums aren't modeled
correctly when using inFusion
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=474
Fixed. It will be available in the future release of inFusion.
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: -Platform-VW -Platform-Squeak Component-ExternalTools
Platform-Pharo Milestone-4.4
Comment #5 on issue 231 by tudor.gi...(a)gmail.com: browseSource does not
work in Moose when called from a different OS than the one on which the
source code has been parsed with an external parser
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=231
This has been solved by having the inFusion export only paths separated by
/. It will be available in the following release.