Is there any new documentation planned ?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Benjamin < benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com> wrote: > Confirmed and fixed :P > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12153 > > > Ben > > On 12 Nov 2013, at 17:08, Martin Dias <tinchod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (Checked in Pharo 30567) > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Martin Dias <tinchod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Ben. It's neat to have Spec models for tree columns. It was > strange to instantiate MorphTreeColumnMorph directly from my Spec > model. > > I found an issue in TreeModel: Only one level of children is shown. > Reproduce with: > > TreeModel new > roots: (1 to: 5); > childrenBlock: [ :item | 1+item to: 5+item ]; > openWithSpec > > Should I report? > > Martín > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin > <benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It’s this one: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12135 > > Ben > > On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:49, Martin Dias <tinchod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I forgot to specify: in latest Pharo (30565) > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Martin Dias <tinchod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think there is some issue with TreeColumnModel. For example: > > TreeModel exampleWithCustomColumnsAndNodes > > Raises "ByteSymbol(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #adapt:" > > Should I report in fogbugz? > > thanks, > Martín > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Stéphane Ducasse > <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: > > Yes this is what I did for the change sorter. I do not like this DSL like > way of passing block over block over block > over blocks. > > I love blocks but methods are named blocks and I prefer them. > > Stef > > biut that method can be written: > > aMenu addGroup: (MenuGroupModel new > addItem: (MenuItemModel new > name: 'Browse Full'; > action: [ self browseSelectedObject ]; > shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix); > addItem: (MenuItem new > name: 'Browse Class'; > action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ])). > > and you do not have to declare variables for that (and is a lot better than > using a block, IMO). > > > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Benjamin < > benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > One can just use an object too. > > It’s just that otherwise, it pollutes a bit the method with tons of inst > vars > (and then you forget to use them :P) > > Ben > > On 12 Nov 2013, at 13:05, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Benjamin < > benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > It is not necessary better, but it saves you from having hundreds of temp > vars :) > > Ben > > On 12 Nov 2013, at 01:49, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> > wrote: > > > Example: > aMenu addGroup: [ :aGroup | > aGroup addItem: [ :anItem | > anItem name: 'Browse Full'; > action: [ self browseSelectedObject ]; > shortcut: $b command mac | $b alt win | $b alt unix ]. > aGroup addItem: [ :anItem | > anItem name: 'Browse Class'; > action: [ self browseSelectedObjectClass ] ] ]. > > > I do not see the value of passing block to add element to groups > why not the normal way i.e. passing an object. I do not get why executing > a block with an object is better? > > > he, I thought the same :) > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > >
