cool. thx. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Andrei Chis <chisvasileand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done. > > Cheers, > Andrei > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Andrei Chis <chisvasileand...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Just curious what the magic numbers here relate to... >> >> >> and can they be factored out to a meaningful method name? >> >> >> >> >> >> Context>>gtInspectorVariableValuePairs >> >> >> "This is a helper method that returns a collection of >> >> >> variable_name -> value >> >> >> for the current object. >> >> >> Subclasses can override it to specialize what appears in the >> variables >> >> >> presentation" >> >> >> | bindings | >> >> >> bindings := OrderedCollection new. >> >> >> 1 to: (self basicSize min: 21) do: [ :index | >> >> >> bindings add: (index "asString""asTwoCharacterString" -> (self >> basicAt: >> >> >> index)) ]. >> >> >> ((self basicSize - 20) max: 22) to: (self basicSize) do: [ :index | >> >> >> "self >> >> >> haltIf: [ index = 99 ]." >> >> >> bindings add: (index "asString" -> (self basicAt: index)) ]. >> >> >> bindings >> >> >> addAll: ((self class allSlots >> >> >> collect: [ :slot | slot name -> (slot read: self) ]) sort >> >> >> asOrderedCollection). >> >> >> ^ bindings >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cheers -ben >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Andrei Chis < >> chisvasileand...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Yes these numbers should be refactored >> >> > For collections only the first and the last 21 elements are >> displayed in >> >> > the >> >> > Raw view. Don't remember why 21. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Andrei >> >> > >> >> >> >> Ahhh. Nice to know. Here I was thinking it was based on some intrinsic >> >> restriction on the number of variables or something. >> >> >> >> I'm a fan of overusing redundant variables for documenting purposes... >> >> >> >> Object>>gtInspectorVariableValuePairs >> >> | indexableDisplayLimit bottom topLimit bottomLimit bindings | >> >> >> >> indexableDisplayLimit := 21. >> >> top := 1. >> >> bottom := self basicSize. >> >> topLimit := bottom min: indexableDisplayLimit. >> >> bottomLimit := (bottom - indexableDisplayLimit) max: >> indexableDisplayLimit. >> >> >> >> bindings := OrderedCollection new. >> >> "Return top and bottom of indexable elements" >> >> top to: topLimit do: [ :index | bindings add: (index -> (self basicAt: >> >> index)) ]. bottomLimit + 1 to: bottom do: [ :index | bindings add: >> (index -> >> >> (self basicAt: index)) ]. >> >> >> >> "Return named variables" >> >> bindings >> >> addAll: ((self class allSlots >> >> collect: [ :slot | slot name -> (slot read: self) ]) sort >> >> asOrderedCollection). >> >> ^ bindings >> >> >> >> If this looks reasonable I'll do up a slice. >> > >> > >> > Looks good. I'll commit this to the inspector repo and will be picked >> by the >> > next integration. >> >> Thanks Andre. >> >> Very minor thing if its not too late. Looking at it again I'd actually >> rearrange these two lines like this... >> topLimit := indexableDisplayLimit min: bottom. >> bottomLimit := indexableDisplayLimit max: (bottom - >> indexableDisplayLimit) . >> >> But don't worry if you've already done the first way. >> cheers -ben >> >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Andrei >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps defining "top" is overkill - but it does read nice below that. >> >> btw, in general I understand that some smart optimising compilers will >> >> substitute 1 for "top" directly since its assigned a literal and not >> >> reassigned before its use. I notice from the bytecode this doesn't >> happen >> >> here. Is there some intrinsic difficulty in our domain stopping this >> to >> >> happen, or its just not been a priority. I guess while stepping >> through the >> >> debugger "top" a user might set a new value for "top" and reverting the >> >> substitution of "1" for "top" needs the sort of facility that Sista >> will >> >> provide?? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> There is very little meaning behind the number. >> >>> >> >>> The previous inspector showed the first 100 and the last 10 elements. >> 100 >> >>> is anyway too large for a quick inspection, so we picked another >> number. I >> >>> wanted 42 but that was still large, so we are now at 21. >> >> >> >> >> >> Well 21 top and bottom gives you 42, and I know life, the universe and >> >> everything depends on that number - so this seems reasonable. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.sy...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> They could be extracted to class vars for example TWENTY_ONE := 21. >> Later >> >>> if performance is still not good enough they may be changed for >> example to >> >>> TWENTY_ONE := 15. >> >>> (joke) >> >> >> >> >> >> You mean something like this... >> >> https://xkcd.com/221/ >> >> >> >> >> >> cheers -ben >> > >> > >> >> >
