Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Richard Sargent]

Tudor Girba-2 wrote
> Hi,
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Eliot Miranda <

> eliot.miranda@

> > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Doru,
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tudor Girba <

> tudor@

> > wrote:
>> Hi Eliot,
>> 
>> I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think
>> that we are talking about complementary issues.
>> 
>> As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a
>> plain selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you
>> find in PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of
>> meta-object and having it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we
>> can also call it a PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all
>> occurrences of a pragma “type” and its utilization in computation. But,
>> the current implementation of PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object,
>> given that it has no casual connection to the runtime.
>> 
>> What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to
>> differ from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see
>> a difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden
>> need opportunity.
>> 
>> I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:
>> 
>> MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
>> “a comment about the pragma"
>> 
> 
>> 
>> However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with
>> the internal representation. There could still well be an object that
>> encapsulates both the selector and the comment. And that object would
>> also allow us to build tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType,
>> PragmaDefinition, or even PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to
>> point to this type either through an inst var or through a query (I would
>> probably prefer an instvar).
>> 
>> Well, there already /is/ a meta-object called Pragma, and it gets
>> instantiated when one accesses the compiled method via pragmas:
>> 
>> (CompiledMethod allInstances detect: [:m| m pragmas size > 1]) pragmas
>> collect: [:ea| {ea. ea class}] {{
> 
>  . Pragma} . {
> 
>  . Pragma}}
> 
> Yes I know :). An instance of Pragma denotes an concrete annotation of a
> method. I now would like a meta-object that describes all Pragma instances
> having the same selector. For example, the protocol on the class side of
> the Pragma class is actually a query protocol that is better suited for
> the instance side of a PragmaDescription meta-object. For example:
> 
>   Pragma class>>allNamed: aSymbol in: aClass
> 
> would become
> 
>   PragmaDescription>>pragmasIn: aClass
> 
> and you would use it like:
> 
>   (PragmaDescription named: aSymbol) pragmasIn: aClass

I am concerned with this proposal. Effectively, it says only one
person/package can ever define a pragma selector. It would interfere with
two completely independent developers from using  for their
own work.

I think it would be better to expand on  to be able to declare
the symbol, the Pragma class, the comment, etc. which would create the meta
instance you desire, but without closing off independent work.

The the expression /PragmaDescription for: #foo/ would answer a collection
of PragmaDescriptions (0 or more). Other methods in the API could be used to
answer the one and only or throw an error if not exactly one, and so on.

[I know of no way that the individual description could find /just/ its
corresponding  uses. Conversely, I know of no way that the compiler
could reliably determine that a method with  was referring to the
pragma from one declaration versus another. But, I think that is less a
problem than forcing a "Highlander" implementation.]

> Creating an instance of PragmaDescription would imply searching the image
> for the 
> 
>  definition. I would also like to have a Flyweight pool per environment
> such that we always get only one instance of a PragmaDefinition per
> selector (like it happens with Symbols).
> 
> 
>> So we could add the information you want to Pragma, and have it be lazy.
> 
> It does not quite belong to the Pragma. A comment is common to all Pragma
> instances, and having it duplicated at the instance level is less elegant.
> 
> But, looking for the users (all senders of the pragma selector - the
> methods that use the annotation) of a Pragma would be even less
> inconvenient to have on the instance side of Pragma.
> 
> 
>> The Pragma could go search for the defining class-side pragma methods and
>> use the parser to extract the comment(s) when asked.  Hence simple access
>> to pragmas, interested only in the selectors for applying, wouldn't have
>> their performance be impacted.
> 
> The design sketched above would require no runtime penalty for a Pragma
> instance. All code that works now would work identically afterwards. We
> would only have one selector in Pragma to get the corresponding
> description:
> 
> Pragma>>description
>   ^ PragmaDescription named: self selector
> 
> Alternatively, we could modify 

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Hi,

Ok, great. I will play with this.

Cheers,
Doru


> On Jul 7, 2016, at 11:19 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
> 
> Hi Doru,
> 
>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Doru,
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
>>> Hi Eliot,
>>> 
>>> I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think 
>>> that we are talking about complementary issues.
>>> 
>>> As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a 
>>> plain selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you 
>>> find in PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of meta-object 
>>> and having it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we can also call 
>>> it a PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all occurrences of a 
>>> pragma “type” and its utilization in computation. But, the current 
>>> implementation of PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object, given that it 
>>> has no casual connection to the runtime.
>>> 
>>> What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to 
>>> differ from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see a 
>>> difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden need 
>>> opportunity.
>>> 
>>> I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:
>>> 
>>> MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
>>>   “a comment about the pragma"
>>>   
>>> 
>>> However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with 
>>> the internal representation. There could still well be an object that 
>>> encapsulates both the selector and the comment. And that object would also 
>>> allow us to build tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType, 
>>> PragmaDefinition, or even PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to 
>>> point to this type either through an inst var or through a query (I would 
>>> probably prefer an instvar).
>>> 
>>> Well, there already /is/ a meta-object called Pragma, and it gets 
>>> instantiated when one accesses the compiled method via pragmas:
>>> 
>>> (CompiledMethod allInstances detect: [:m| m pragmas size > 1]) pragmas 
>>> collect: [:ea| {ea. ea class}] {{ . Pragma} . {>> #tablePtr type: 'int *'> . Pragma}}
>> 
>> Yes I know :). An instance of Pragma denotes an concrete annotation of a 
>> method. I now would like a meta-object that describes all Pragma instances 
>> having the same selector. For example, the protocol on the class side of the 
>> Pragma class is actually a query protocol that is better suited for the 
>> instance side of a PragmaDescription meta-object. For example:
>> 
>>   Pragma class>>allNamed: aSymbol in: aClass
>> 
>> would become
>> 
>>   PragmaDescription>>pragmasIn: aClass
>> 
>> and you would use it like:
>> 
>>   (PragmaDescription named: aSymbol) pragmasIn: aClass
>> 
>> Creating an instance of PragmaDescription would imply searching the image 
>> for the  definition.
> 
> I like this.
> 
>> I would also like to have a Flyweight pool per environment such that we 
>> always get only one instance of a PragmaDefinition per selector (like it 
>> happens with Symbols).
> 
> Yes, good refinement.
> 
>>> So we could add the information you want to Pragma, and have it be lazy.
>> 
>> It does not quite belong to the Pragma. A comment is common to all Pragma 
>> instances, and having it duplicated at the instance level is less elegant.
>> 
>> But, looking for the users (all senders of the pragma selector - the methods 
>> that use the annotation) of a Pragma would be even less inconvenient to have 
>> on the instance side of Pragma.
>> 
>> 
>>> The Pragma could go search for the defining class-side pragma methods and 
>>> use the parser to extract the comment(s) when asked.  Hence simple access 
>>> to pragmas, interested only in the selectors for applying, wouldn't have 
>>> their performance be impacted.
>> 
>> The design sketched above would require no runtime penalty for a Pragma 
>> instance. All code that works now would work identically afterwards. We 
>> would only have one selector in Pragma to get the corresponding description:
>> 
>> Pragma>>description
>>   ^ PragmaDescription named: self selector
>> 
>> Alternatively, we could modify the compilation to associate the 
>> PragmaDescription in an inst var of a Pragma instance. So, 
>> CompiledMethod>>pragmas would always return instances of Pragmas with a 
>> PragmaDefinition inst var.
>> 
>> I think I would start with the lazy lookup first, and this would disturb 
>> nothing from the current behavior.
> 
> Sounds like a reasonable plan.  
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I think that this proposition does not remove from the simplicity of the 
>>> implementation at all, but allows the new needs to be accommodated nicely. 
>>> The alternative is to not do anything, in which case we will continue to 
>>> have an analysis-only-pseudo-meta-object which is not nice at all. I do not 
>>> t

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Eliot Miranda]

Hi Doru,

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Doru,
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
>> Hi Eliot,
>> 
>> I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think 
>> that we are talking about complementary issues.
>> 
>> As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a 
>> plain selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you 
>> find in PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of meta-object 
>> and having it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we can also call 
>> it a PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all occurrences of a 
>> pragma “type” and its utilization in computation. But, the current 
>> implementation of PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object, given that it has 
>> no casual connection to the runtime.
>> 
>> What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to 
>> differ from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see a 
>> difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden need 
>> opportunity.
>> 
>> I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:
>> 
>> MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
>>“a comment about the pragma"
>>
>> 
>> However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with the 
>> internal representation. There could still well be an object that 
>> encapsulates both the selector and the comment. And that object would also 
>> allow us to build tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType, 
>> PragmaDefinition, or even PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to 
>> point to this type either through an inst var or through a query (I would 
>> probably prefer an instvar).
>> 
>> Well, there already /is/ a meta-object called Pragma, and it gets 
>> instantiated when one accesses the compiled method via pragmas:
>> 
>> (CompiledMethod allInstances detect: [:m| m pragmas size > 1]) pragmas 
>> collect: [:ea| {ea. ea class}] {{ . Pragma} . {> type: 'int *'> . Pragma}}
> 
> Yes I know :). An instance of Pragma denotes an concrete annotation of a 
> method. I now would like a meta-object that describes all Pragma instances 
> having the same selector. For example, the protocol on the class side of the 
> Pragma class is actually a query protocol that is better suited for the 
> instance side of a PragmaDescription meta-object. For example:
> 
>Pragma class>>allNamed: aSymbol in: aClass
> 
> would become
> 
>PragmaDescription>>pragmasIn: aClass
> 
> and you would use it like:
> 
>(PragmaDescription named: aSymbol) pragmasIn: aClass
> 
> Creating an instance of PragmaDescription would imply searching the image for 
> the  definition.

I like this.

> I would also like to have a Flyweight pool per environment such that we 
> always get only one instance of a PragmaDefinition per selector (like it 
> happens with Symbols).

Yes, good refinement.

>> So we could add the information you want to Pragma, and have it be lazy.
> 
> It does not quite belong to the Pragma. A comment is common to all Pragma 
> instances, and having it duplicated at the instance level is less elegant.
> 
> But, looking for the users (all senders of the pragma selector - the methods 
> that use the annotation) of a Pragma would be even less inconvenient to have 
> on the instance side of Pragma.
> 
> 
>> The Pragma could go search for the defining class-side pragma methods and 
>> use the parser to extract the comment(s) when asked.  Hence simple access to 
>> pragmas, interested only in the selectors for applying, wouldn't have their 
>> performance be impacted.
> 
> The design sketched above would require no runtime penalty for a Pragma 
> instance. All code that works now would work identically afterwards. We would 
> only have one selector in Pragma to get the corresponding description:
> 
> Pragma>>description
>^ PragmaDescription named: self selector
> 
> Alternatively, we could modify the compilation to associate the 
> PragmaDescription in an inst var of a Pragma instance. So, 
> CompiledMethod>>pragmas would always return instances of Pragmas with a 
> PragmaDefinition inst var.
> 
> I think I would start with the lazy lookup first, and this would disturb 
> nothing from the current behavior.

Sounds like a reasonable plan.  

> 
> 
>> I think that this proposition does not remove from the simplicity of the 
>> implementation at all, but allows the new needs to be accommodated nicely. 
>> The alternative is to not do anything, in which case we will continue to 
>> have an analysis-only-pseudo-meta-object which is not nice at all. I do not 
>> think we should jump on this lightly, but I do think we should have a 
>> critical look and evaluate the options.
>> 
>> This pseudo-meta-object (Pragma) can sty ill be causally connected, in the 
>> same way that a MethodReference can be causa

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Hi,

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
> 
> Hi Doru,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think that 
> we are talking about complementary issues.
> 
> As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a plain 
> selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you find in 
> PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of meta-object and having 
> it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we can also call it a 
> PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all occurrences of a pragma 
> “type” and its utilization in computation. But, the current implementation of 
> PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object, given that it has no casual 
> connection to the runtime.
> 
> What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to 
> differ from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see a 
> difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden need 
> opportunity.
> 
> I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:
> 
> MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
> “a comment about the pragma"
> 
> 
> However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with the 
> internal representation. There could still well be an object that 
> encapsulates both the selector and the comment. And that object would also 
> allow us to build tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType, 
> PragmaDefinition, or even PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to 
> point to this type either through an inst var or through a query (I would 
> probably prefer an instvar).
> 
> Well, there already /is/ a meta-object called Pragma, and it gets 
> instantiated when one accesses the compiled method via pragmas:
> 
> (CompiledMethod allInstances detect: [:m| m pragmas size > 1]) pragmas 
> collect: [:ea| {ea. ea class}] {{ . Pragma} . { type: 'int *'> . Pragma}}

Yes I know :). An instance of Pragma denotes an concrete annotation of a 
method. I now would like a meta-object that describes all Pragma instances 
having the same selector. For example, the protocol on the class side of the 
Pragma class is actually a query protocol that is better suited for the 
instance side of a PragmaDescription meta-object. For example:

Pragma class>>allNamed: aSymbol in: aClass

would become

PragmaDescription>>pragmasIn: aClass

and you would use it like:

(PragmaDescription named: aSymbol) pragmasIn: aClass

Creating an instance of PragmaDescription would imply searching the image for 
the  definition. I would also like to have a Flyweight pool per 
environment such that we always get only one instance of a PragmaDefinition per 
selector (like it happens with Symbols).


> So we could add the information you want to Pragma, and have it be lazy.

It does not quite belong to the Pragma. A comment is common to all Pragma 
instances, and having it duplicated at the instance level is less elegant.

But, looking for the users (all senders of the pragma selector - the methods 
that use the annotation) of a Pragma would be even less inconvenient to have on 
the instance side of Pragma.


> The Pragma could go search for the defining class-side pragma methods and use 
> the parser to extract the comment(s) when asked.  Hence simple access to 
> pragmas, interested only in the selectors for applying, wouldn't have their 
> performance be impacted.

The design sketched above would require no runtime penalty for a Pragma 
instance. All code that works now would work identically afterwards. We would 
only have one selector in Pragma to get the corresponding description:

Pragma>>description
^ PragmaDescription named: self selector

Alternatively, we could modify the compilation to associate the 
PragmaDescription in an inst var of a Pragma instance. So, 
CompiledMethod>>pragmas would always return instances of Pragmas with a 
PragmaDefinition inst var.

I think I would start with the lazy lookup first, and this would disturb 
nothing from the current behavior.


> I think that this proposition does not remove from the simplicity of the 
> implementation at all, but allows the new needs to be accommodated nicely. 
> The alternative is to not do anything, in which case we will continue to have 
> an analysis-only-pseudo-meta-object which is not nice at all. I do not think 
> we should jump on this lightly, but I do think we should have a critical look 
> and evaluate the options.
> 
> This pseudo-meta-object (Pragma) can sty ill be causally connected, in the 
> same way that a MethodReference can be causally connected.  The causation is 
> things like "remove", "recompile", but that's dubious.  It's essentially a 
> read-only relationship; one wants to be able to locate the method from the 
> pragma, but changing the method from the pragma isn't necessarily a good 
> idea

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[stepharo]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:53 PM, stepharo  wrote:


When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the 
same - let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code 
is accepted
and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I 
quickly realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is 
a bad idea given the

environment. So I'd be very careful..

can you explain your statement?


Let me try, this is tricky for me as I'm not good at explaining :-)

The problems pop out when one need to load the code back. If 100> gets parsed and stored in
an annotation container as instance of class Coolish (at compilation 
time),  this means that you just
introduced a dependency from package of the method which contains the 
annotation to the package of
Coolish class. This is not (or rather was not in my case) desirable, 
because I need/want to annotate
methods in kernel with annotations for tools. Kernel should not depend 
or tools - I believe we agree on
that :-) Note, that this is less of a problem for Java since Java loads 
all code lazily, on demand and in a defined
way. I personally found it very nice  - though it has some (solvable?) 
issues when this lazy loading is used in Smalltalkish

environment such as STX:LIBJAVA)

You can indeed parse them and store them as raw data and convert them 
on demand in reflective
API. Then, if the class is not available what to do? Return an instance 
of generic Pragma?
Throw an error? When one starts to put an arbitrary code into the 
annotation object itself it's either
processing  code only access data  or it somehow fiddles about the 
annotation itself and/or (worse!)
about the method itself. The latter results in difficult to debug 
problems as the time the code is executed
is undefined (if you use lazy instantiation to avoid dependency 
problem). This may be fine with
most Smalltalkers as there are other pieces of code that execute 
randomly in an undefined order and still

very few complain :-) but I did not want to make things even worse.
For the former, mere data-accessing processing code, I don't see much 
of a difference by putting it
somwhere else. Follows the same logic as visitor, instead of putting 
code to nodes, you put them

to extra visitor class.

Eliot's design elegantly avoid these problems (the same way Java does 
:-) by simply having one defined
structure which keeps the logical type of the annotation as data (the 
selector of the message send).

It has other problems, but not the one above.

Not sure if it makes sense, but I did my best :-) I'm not saying it's 
not solvable and you cannot have
class per annotation type, but it is not **that** easy to get it right. 
This is my experience over the years.


HTH, Jan




Stef




Jan

P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a 
very enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, 
there's whole lot of things that Java guys got right...

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Eliot Miranda]

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
> 
> Hi Eliot.
>   || Are you being serious or sarcastic?
> I was sarcastics. Please don't kill me. I just too much hate java. I worked 
> on it to much :))
> 
:)

> 28 июня 2016 г. 18:05 пользователь "Eliot Miranda"  
> написал:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Following this "bad idea" we should agree that smalltalk metaclass system 
>>> is horrible and class should be just a language artifact
>>> 
>> Are you being serious or sarcastic?
>> 
>>> 28 июня 2016 г. 11:45 пользователь "Jan Vrany"  
>>> написал:
 
 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
>>> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can 
>>> not put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default 
>>> values for those attributes.
>> 
>> Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them 
>> which always forced me to hate Java :)
> 
> Yep.
 
 Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the restriction 
 is on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation class
 with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't see a 
 rule that would reject such a class). 
 
 When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same - 
 let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is accepted
 and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I quickly 
 realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a bad idea 
 given the 
 environment. So I'd be very careful..
 
 Jan
 
 P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a very 
 enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
 do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's 
 whole lot of things that Java guys got right...

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Denis Kudriashov]

Hi Eliot.
  || Are you being serious or sarcastic?
I was sarcastics. Please don't kill me. I just too much hate java. I worked
on it to much :))
28 июня 2016 г. 18:05 пользователь "Eliot Miranda" 
написал:

>
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Denis Kudriashov 
> wrote:
>
> Following this "bad idea" we should agree that smalltalk metaclass system
> is horrible and class should be just a language artifact
>
> Are you being serious or sarcastic?
>
> 28 июня 2016 г. 11:45 пользователь "Jan Vrany" 
> написал:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
>>>
 That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can
 not put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default
 values for those attributes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them
>>> which always forced me to hate Java :)
>>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
>> Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the restriction
>> is on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation class
>> with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't see
>> a rule that would reject such a class).
>>
>> When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same -
>> let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is accepted
>> and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I quickly
>> realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a bad idea
>> given the
>> environment. So I'd be very careful..
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a very
>> enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
>> do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's
>> whole lot of things that Java guys got right...
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Sarcasm never really works on mailing lists :)

Doru


> On Jun 28, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
> 
>> Following this "bad idea" we should agree that smalltalk metaclass system is 
>> horrible and class should be just a language artifact
>> 
> Are you being serious or sarcastic?
> 
>> 28 июня 2016 г. 11:45 пользователь "Jan Vrany"  
>> написал:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini  
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
>>> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can not 
>>> put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default values 
>>> for those attributes.
>>> 
>>> Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them which 
>>> always forced me to hate Java :)
>>> 
>>> Yep.
>> 
>> Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the restriction is 
>> on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation class
>> with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't see a 
>> rule that would reject such a class). 
>> 
>> When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same - 
>> let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is accepted
>> and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I quickly 
>> realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a bad idea 
>> given the 
>> environment. So I'd be very careful..
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a very 
>> enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
>> do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's whole 
>> lot of things that Java guys got right...
>> 
>> 

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"When people care, great things can happen."

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Hi Eliot,

I will get back to this email after tomorrow. I need a bit of time to put an 
answer together.

Cheers,
Doru


> On Jun 27, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
> 
> Hi Doru,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think that 
> we are talking about complementary issues.
> 
> As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a plain 
> selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you find in 
> PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of meta-object and having 
> it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we can also call it a 
> PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all occurrences of a pragma 
> “type” and its utilization in computation. But, the current implementation of 
> PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object, given that it has no casual 
> connection to the runtime.
> 
> What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to 
> differ from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see a 
> difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden need 
> opportunity.
> 
> I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:
> 
> MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
> “a comment about the pragma"
> 
> 
> However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with the 
> internal representation. There could still well be an object that 
> encapsulates both the selector and the comment. And that object would also 
> allow us to build tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType, 
> PragmaDefinition, or even PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to 
> point to this type either through an inst var or through a query (I would 
> probably prefer an instvar).
> 
> Well, there already /is/ a meta-object called Pragma, and it gets 
> instantiated when one accesses the compiled method via pragmas:
> 
> (CompiledMethod allInstances detect: [:m| m pragmas size > 1]) pragmas 
> collect: [:ea| {ea. ea class}] {{ . Pragma} . { type: 'int *'> . Pragma}}
> 
> So we could add the information you want to Pragma, and have it be lazy.  The 
> Pragma could go search for the defining class-side pragma methods and use the 
> parser to extract the comment(s) when asked.  Hence simple access to pragmas, 
> interested only in the selectors for applying, wouldn't have their 
> performance be impacted.
> 
> 
> I think that this proposition does not remove from the simplicity of the 
> implementation at all, but allows the new needs to be accommodated nicely. 
> The alternative is to not do anything, in which case we will continue to have 
> an analysis-only-pseudo-meta-object which is not nice at all. I do not think 
> we should jump on this lightly, but I do think we should have a critical look 
> and evaluate the options.
> 
> This pseudo-meta-object (Pragma) can sty ill be causally connected, in the 
> same way that a MethodReference can be causally connected.  The causation is 
> things like "remove", "recompile", but that's dubious.  It's essentially a 
> read-only relationship; one wants to be able to locate the method from the 
> pragma, but changing the method from the pragma isn't necessarily a good 
> idea.  Would you agree that convenience methods like "remove" on 
> MethodReference are a bad idea and one should stick to the removeSelector: 
> protocol on Behavior and ClassDescription?
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Have I and enough coffee to scramble my thoughts might be a more pertinent 
> question ;-)
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> Doru
> 
> 
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Doru,
> >
> >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:52 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The CompiledMethod already has a way to retrieve Pragma instances:
> >>
> >> CompiledMethod>>pragmas.
> >>
> >> However, the Pragma instance does not have a meta-object associated with 
> >> it. So, I would first start from adding that one and linking such a 
> >> PragmaType to its instances. The important thing here would be that all 
> >> Pragma instances with a certain selector should reference the same 
> >> PragmaType.
> >
> > Let me express a dissenting opinion.  Our pragma system is minimal yet 
> > powerful. By using Message instances (with literal arguments) to represent 
> > pragmas we get
> > - executable pragmas that can be applied using perform: or wrappers such as 
> > sentTo:
> > - we can use conventional browsing queries (implementors and senders) to 
> > discover which methods are marked by a specific pragma and what 
> > pragma-processing tools implement a specific pragma.
> > - a rich pragma language that can have many, named parameters
> > - a system which doesn't need its own language, but reuses the existing 
> > Smalltalk parsing facilities, and so is easier to learn and to implement
> >
> > So its parsimony is an important part of its virtues.  It 

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[stepharo]

When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the 
same - let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code 
is accepted
and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I 
quickly realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a 
bad idea given the

environment. So I'd be very careful..

can you explain your statement?

Stef




Jan

P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a 
very enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's 
whole lot of things that Java guys got right...

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Eliot Miranda]

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
> 
> Following this "bad idea" we should agree that smalltalk metaclass system is 
> horrible and class should be just a language artifact
> 
Are you being serious or sarcastic?

> 28 июня 2016 г. 11:45 пользователь "Jan Vrany"  
> написал:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov  
 wrote:
 
 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can not 
> put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default 
> values for those attributes.
 
 Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them which 
 always forced me to hate Java :)
>>> 
>>> Yep.
>> 
>> Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the restriction is 
>> on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation class
>> with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't see a 
>> rule that would reject such a class). 
>> 
>> When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same - 
>> let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is accepted
>> and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I quickly 
>> realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a bad idea 
>> given the 
>> environment. So I'd be very careful..
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a very 
>> enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
>> do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's whole 
>> lot of things that Java guys got right...

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Denis Kudriashov]

Following this "bad idea" we should agree that smalltalk metaclass system
is horrible and class should be just a language artifact
28 июня 2016 г. 11:45 пользователь "Jan Vrany" 
написал:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
>>
>>> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can
>>> not put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default
>>> values for those attributes.
>>
>>
>> Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them which
>> always forced me to hate Java :)
>>
>
> Yep.
>
>
> Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the restriction
> is on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation class
> with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't see a
> rule that would reject such a class).
>
> When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same -
> let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is accepted
> and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I quickly
> realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a bad idea
> given the
> environment. So I'd be very careful..
>
> Jan
>
> P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a very
> enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
> do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's
> whole lot of things that Java guys got right...
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Jan Vrany]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini 
 wrote:



On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov 
 wrote:


2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you 
can not put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally 
default values for those attributes.


Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them 
which always forced me to hate Java :)


Yep.


Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the 
restriction is on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation 
class
with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't 
see a rule that would reject such a class).


When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same 
- let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is 
accepted
and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I 
quickly realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a 
bad idea given the

environment. So I'd be very careful..

Jan

P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a 
very enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else
do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's 
whole lot of things that Java guys got right...

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Eliot Miranda]

Hi Doru,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:

> Hi Eliot,
>
> I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think
> that we are talking about complementary issues.
>
> As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a
> plain selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you
> find in PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of meta-object
> and having it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we can also call
> it a PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all occurrences of a
> pragma “type” and its utilization in computation. But, the current
> implementation of PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object, given that it
> has no casual connection to the runtime.
>
> What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to
> differ from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see a
> difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden need
> opportunity.
>
> I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:
>
> MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
> “a comment about the pragma"
> 
>
> However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with
> the internal representation. There could still well be an object that
> encapsulates both the selector and the comment. And that object would also
> allow us to build tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType,
> PragmaDefinition, or even PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to
> point to this type either through an inst var or through a query (I would
> probably prefer an instvar).
>

Well, there already /is/ a meta-object called Pragma, and it gets
instantiated when one accesses the compiled method via pragmas:

(CompiledMethod allInstances detect: [:m| m pragmas size > 1]) pragmas
collect: [:ea| {ea. ea class}] {{ . Pragma} . { . Pragma}}

So we could add the information you want to Pragma, and have it be lazy.
The Pragma could go search for the defining class-side pragma methods and
use the parser to extract the comment(s) when asked.  Hence simple access
to pragmas, interested only in the selectors for applying, wouldn't have
their performance be impacted.


> I think that this proposition does not remove from the simplicity of the
> implementation at all, but allows the new needs to be accommodated nicely.
> The alternative is to not do anything, in which case we will continue to
> have an analysis-only-pseudo-meta-object which is not nice at all. I do not
> think we should jump on this lightly, but I do think we should have a
> critical look and evaluate the options.
>

This pseudo-meta-object (Pragma) can sty ill be causally connected, in the
same way that a MethodReference can be causally connected.  The causation
is things like "remove", "recompile", but that's dubious.  It's essentially
a read-only relationship; one wants to be able to locate the method from
the pragma, but changing the method from the pragma isn't necessarily a
good idea.  Would you agree that convenience methods like "remove" on
MethodReference are a bad idea and one should stick to the removeSelector:
protocol on Behavior and ClassDescription?


> What do you think?
>

Have I and enough coffee to scramble my thoughts might be a more pertinent
question ;-)


>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Eliot Miranda 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Doru,
> >
> >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:52 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The CompiledMethod already has a way to retrieve Pragma instances:
> >>
> >> CompiledMethod>>pragmas.
> >>
> >> However, the Pragma instance does not have a meta-object associated
> with it. So, I would first start from adding that one and linking such a
> PragmaType to its instances. The important thing here would be that all
> Pragma instances with a certain selector should reference the same
> PragmaType.
> >
> > Let me express a dissenting opinion.  Our pragma system is minimal yet
> powerful. By using Message instances (with literal arguments) to represent
> pragmas we get
> > - executable pragmas that can be applied using perform: or wrappers such
> as sentTo:
> > - we can use conventional browsing queries (implementors and senders) to
> discover which methods are marked by a specific pragma and what
> pragma-processing tools implement a specific pragma.
> > - a rich pragma language that can have many, named parameters
> > - a system which doesn't need its own language, but reuses the existing
> Smalltalk parsing facilities, and so is easier to learn and to implement
> >
> > So its parsimony is an important part of its virtues.  It is minimal.
> >
> > One thing missing from the Squeak/Pharo implementation is the set of
> legal pragmas a class accepts.  In VisualWorks a class implements the
>  (it might be  pragma:selector:two:)>) to define the legal set of pragmas.
> [Implementation note, these are /not/ searched for ahead of compilation;
> instead, the 

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Hi Eliot,

I agree with most things you say (except the conclusion :)), and I think that 
we are talking about complementary issues.

As I mentioned before, there already is a need to distinguish between a plain 
selector and one that is associated with pragmas. This is what you find in 
PragmaType in Spotter and Inspector. This is a kind of meta-object and having 
it adds value. I can search for pragmas “type” (we can also call it a 
PragmaSelector), and I can distinguish between all occurrences of a pragma 
“type” and its utilization in computation. But, the current implementation of 
PragmaType is a mere pseudo-meta-object, given that it has no casual connection 
to the runtime.

What we know from Smalltalk is that the analysis model does not have to differ 
from the runtime one. The consequence is that every time we do see a 
difference, we should investigate because we might uncover a hidden need 
opportunity.

I know the VW model, and indeed, we could have something like:

MyConcept class>>myPragmaDefinition
“a comment about the pragma"


However, this only deals with the definition of the pragma type not with the 
internal representation. There could still well be an object that encapsulates 
both the selector and the comment. And that object would also allow us to build 
tools around it. We could call it a PragmaType, PragmaDefinition, or even 
PragmaSelector. And we could get the Pragma to point to this type either 
through an inst var or through a query (I would probably prefer an instvar).

I think that this proposition does not remove from the simplicity of the 
implementation at all, but allows the new needs to be accommodated nicely. The 
alternative is to not do anything, in which case we will continue to have an 
analysis-only-pseudo-meta-object which is not nice at all. I do not think we 
should jump on this lightly, but I do think we should have a critical look and 
evaluate the options.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru


> On Jun 27, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Eliot Miranda  wrote:
> 
> Hi Doru,
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:52 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The CompiledMethod already has a way to retrieve Pragma instances:
>> 
>> CompiledMethod>>pragmas.
>> 
>> However, the Pragma instance does not have a meta-object associated with it. 
>> So, I would first start from adding that one and linking such a PragmaType 
>> to its instances. The important thing here would be that all Pragma 
>> instances with a certain selector should reference the same PragmaType.
> 
> Let me express a dissenting opinion.  Our pragma system is minimal yet 
> powerful. By using Message instances (with literal arguments) to represent 
> pragmas we get
> - executable pragmas that can be applied using perform: or wrappers such as 
> sentTo:
> - we can use conventional browsing queries (implementors and senders) to 
> discover which methods are marked by a specific pragma and what 
> pragma-processing tools implement a specific pragma.
> - a rich pragma language that can have many, named parameters
> - a system which doesn't need its own language, but reuses the existing 
> Smalltalk parsing facilities, and so is easier to learn and to implement
> 
> So its parsimony is an important part of its virtues.  It is minimal.
> 
> One thing missing from the Squeak/Pharo implementation is the set of legal 
> pragmas a class accepts.  In VisualWorks a class implements the  #pragma:selector:> (it might be  pragma:selector:two:)>) to define the legal set of pragmas.  [Implementation 
> note, these are /not/ searched for ahead of compilation; instead, the parser 
> delays searching for class-side methods containing pragma: pragmas until it 
> encounters a pragma, and it searches for all class side methods, including in 
> superclasses).
> 
> This scheme allows pragmas to be checked; only pragmas in the set of allowed 
> pragmas are accepted, and it allows collision-free extensibility; any package 
> can add a set of legal pragmas to a class merely by choosing a method 
> selector that won't collide with any other containing pragma: pragmas, eg
> kernelPragmas
>
>
>
>
> 
> We're missing this, which means our compilers don't safely check for valid 
> pragmas and can't reject invalid or unrecognized ones, which is error prone.
> 
> If we implemented this then we would have a natural place to comment pragmas 
> in the method that defines a particular pragma, one that would be found using 
> senders.
> 
> None of this requires a meta object.  It is perfectly recursive; using itself 
> to implement itself.  I find this very elegant (I didn't invent pragma: 
> pragmas; Steve Dahl did, and it's a cool idea).
> 
> So as an inventor of pragmas I'd like to ask for the minimal implementation 
> outlined above.  I'd like that we didn't j tricycle a specific meta object, 
> with all the additional tools that implies, and instead stick to the 
> minimalist and parsimony of the original design and use pragma

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Eliot Miranda]

Hi Doru,

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:52 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The CompiledMethod already has a way to retrieve Pragma instances:
> 
> CompiledMethod>>pragmas.
> 
> However, the Pragma instance does not have a meta-object associated with it. 
> So, I would first start from adding that one and linking such a PragmaType to 
> its instances. The important thing here would be that all Pragma instances 
> with a certain selector should reference the same PragmaType.

Let me express a dissenting opinion.  Our pragma system is minimal yet 
powerful. By using Message instances (with literal arguments) to represent 
pragmas we get
- executable pragmas that can be applied using perform: or wrappers such as 
sentTo:
- we can use conventional browsing queries (implementors and senders) to 
discover which methods are marked by a specific pragma and what 
pragma-processing tools implement a specific pragma.
- a rich pragma language that can have many, named parameters
- a system which doesn't need its own language, but reuses the existing 
Smalltalk parsing facilities, and so is easier to learn and to implement

So its parsimony is an important part of its virtues.  It is minimal.

One thing missing from the Squeak/Pharo implementation is the set of legal 
pragmas a class accepts.  In VisualWorks a class implements the  (it might be ) to define the legal set of pragmas.  [Implementation 
note, these are /not/ searched for ahead of compilation; instead, the parser 
delays searching for class-side methods containing pragma: pragmas until it 
encounters a pragma, and it searches for all class side methods, including in 
superclasses).

This scheme allows pragmas to be checked; only pragmas in the set of allowed 
pragmas are accepted, and it allows collision-free extensibility; any package 
can add a set of legal pragmas to a class merely by choosing a method selector 
that won't collide with any other containing pragma: pragmas, eg
kernelPragmas





We're missing this, which means our compilers don't safely check for valid 
pragmas and can't reject invalid or unrecognized ones, which is error prone.

If we implemented this then we would have a natural place to comment pragmas in 
the method that defines a particular pragma, one that would be found using 
senders.

None of this requires a meta object.  It is perfectly recursive; using itself 
to implement itself.  I find this very elegant (I didn't invent pragma: 
pragmas; Steve Dahl did, and it's a cool idea).

So as an inventor of pragmas I'd like to ask for the minimal implementation 
outlined above.  I'd like that we didn't j tricycle a specific meta object, 
with all the additional tools that implies, and instead stick to the minimalist 
and parsimony of the original design and use pragmas to comment pragmas.

> Cheers,
> Doru

Thanks for reading.
Cheers, Eliot

>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-06-27 12:12 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba :
>> Hi,
>> 
>> That is my proposal as well: introduce a first class entity that describes a 
>> Pragma instance. Who would be interested to play with this?
>> 
>> How it could be done? 
>> Probably compiler could search preferred Pragma class for given selector. 
>> And then we will have collection of real pragma instances inside 
>> CompiledMethod. What do you think?
> 
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
> 
> "Be rather willing to give than demanding to get."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Nicolas Passerini]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov 
wrote:

>
> 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :
>
>> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can not
>> put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default values
>> for those attributes.
>
>
> Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them which
> always forced me to hate Java :)
>

Yep.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Denis Kudriashov]

2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini :

> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can not
> put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default values
> for those attributes.


Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them which
always forced me to hate Java :)

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Nicolas Passerini]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov 
wrote:

> Hi.
>
> In Java annotations are first class objects. You can put behaviour and
> state on them. In Smalltalk you can't do this.
>
> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can not
put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default values
for those attributes.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Denis Kudriashov]

2016-06-27 12:52 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba :

> Hi,
>
> The CompiledMethod already has a way to retrieve Pragma instances:
>
> CompiledMethod>>pragmas.
>

I know. I mean that we could modify compiler in the way that it will use
concrete Pragma class during pragma compilation.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Hi,

The CompiledMethod already has a way to retrieve Pragma instances:

CompiledMethod>>pragmas.

However, the Pragma instance does not have a meta-object associated with it. 
So, I would first start from adding that one and linking such a PragmaType to 
its instances. The important thing here would be that all Pragma instances with 
a certain selector should reference the same PragmaType.

Cheers,
Doru


> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
> 
> 
> 2016-06-27 12:12 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba :
> Hi,
> 
> That is my proposal as well: introduce a first class entity that describes a 
> Pragma instance. Who would be interested to play with this?
> 
> How it could be done? 
> Probably compiler could search preferred Pragma class for given selector. And 
> then we will have collection of real pragma instances inside CompiledMethod. 
> What do you think?

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Be rather willing to give than demanding to get."

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Denis Kudriashov]

2016-06-27 12:12 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba :

> Hi,
>
> That is my proposal as well: introduce a first class entity that describes
> a Pragma instance. Who would be interested to play with this?
>

How it could be done?
Probably compiler could search preferred Pragma class for given selector.
And then we will have collection of real pragma instances inside
CompiledMethod. What do you think?

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Tudor Girba]

Hi,

That is my proposal as well: introduce a first class entity that describes a 
Pragma instance. Who would be interested to play with this?

Cheers,
Doru


> On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Esteban Lorenzano  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27 Jun 2016, at 10:36, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi.
>> 
>> In Java annotations are first class objects. You can put behaviour and state 
>> on them. In Smalltalk you can't do this.
> 
> that’s why I was suggesting to make them objects instead simple selectors. 
> but seems that people is scared :)
> 
>> 
>> 2016-06-26 22:00 GMT+02:00 stepharo :
>> Can be interesting for others:
>> 
>> Java SE 8 allows type annotations anywhere that a type is used. 
>> Previously, annotations were only allowed on definitions.
>> 
>> https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/entry/java_8_s_new_type
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Quality cannot be an afterthought."

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Esteban Lorenzano]

> On 27 Jun 2016, at 10:36, Denis Kudriashov  wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> In Java annotations are first class objects. You can put behaviour and state 
> on them. In Smalltalk you can't do this.

that’s why I was suggesting to make them objects instead simple selectors. but 
seems that people is scared :)

> 
> 2016-06-26 22:00 GMT+02:00 stepharo  >:
> Can be interesting for others:
> 
> Java SE 8 allows type annotations anywhere that a type is used. 
> Previously, annotations were only allowed on definitions.
> 
> https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/entry/java_8_s_new_type 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Denis Kudriashov]

Hi.

In Java annotations are first class objects. You can put behaviour and
state on them. In Smalltalk you can't do this.

2016-06-26 22:00 GMT+02:00 stepharo :

> Can be interesting for others:
>
> Java SE 8 allows type annotations anywhere that a type is used.
> Previously, annotations were only allowed on definitions.
>
> https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/entry/java_8_s_new_type
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[stepharo]

Can be interesting for others:

Java SE 8 allows type annotations anywhere that a type is used. 
Previously, annotations were only allowed on definitions.


https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/entry/java_8_s_new_type

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[stepharo]

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/annotation/ElementType.html

ANNOTATION_TYPE
Annotation type declaration
CONSTRUCTOR
Constructor declaration
FIELD
Field declaration (includes enum constants)
LOCAL_VARIABLE
Local variable declaration
METHOD
Method declaration
PACKAGE
Package declaration
PARAMETER
Parameter declaration
TYPE
Class, interface (including annotation type), or enum declaration



Le 26/6/16 à 20:14, stepharo a écrit :

Clement

I do not think that we are talking about the same. You are not 
annotating an AST element.
Of course with a convention you can add a method pragma to annotate an 
source entity that you are the only one

to know that it is the right entity. To me this is different.

So in the paper I do not want to say that Smalltalk pragmas are 
equivalent to Java ones because do me they are not.
I think that Java annotations are nicely integrated into the language 
too. And we cannot annotate (the AST element
of temp, argument, class def, package and annotations themselves in 
Smalltalk). I will read more about Java Annotation

to be more precise.

In Slang we use pragma to annotate argument and temporary
variables and it
works just fine.

Can you give an example on how you annotated it?

When you describe in Pharo classes and instance variables
using Magritte you can do the same thing as just annotating them.

(You see I cannot annotate instance variables directly I can 
define a method with an annotation that tell me that an instance

variable should be interpreted differently.).

Stef

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[stepharo]

Clement

I do not think that we are talking about the same. You are not 
annotating an AST element.
Of course with a convention you can add a method pragma to annotate an 
source entity that you are the only one

to know that it is the right entity. To me this is different.

So in the paper I do not want to say that Smalltalk pragmas are 
equivalent to Java ones because do me they are not.
I think that Java annotations are nicely integrated into the language 
too. And we cannot annotate (the AST element
of temp, argument, class def, package and annotations themselves in 
Smalltalk). I will read more about Java Annotation

to be more precise.

   In Slang we use pragma to annotate argument and temporary variables
   and it
   works just fine.

Can you give an example on how you annotated it?

When you describe in Pharo classes and instance variables
using Magritte you can do the same thing as just annotating them.

(You see I cannot annotate instance variables directly I can define 
a method with an annotation that tell me that an instance

variable should be interpreted differently.).

Stef

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Alexandre Bergel]

Annotate a class or an instance variable :-)

Alexandre

> On Jun 25, 2016, at 3:55 AM, Clément Bera  wrote:
> 
> I would not say that pragmas are more powerful in Java. Can you give an 
> example of something you can do with the Java annotation that you can't do 
> with Pharo pragmas ?

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Alexandre Bergel]

I am not sure to get it. Why not simply having a class PragmaDescription that 
simply associate a comment to a selector ?

Alexandre

> On Jun 25, 2016, at 3:18 AM, Tudor Girba  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I believe we are missing a first class entity for a PragmaType. Essentially, 
> I think that the class side of the Pragma class should become a full object.
> 
> In fact, we already have a rudimentary version of this in Spotter because we 
> needed an object to be able to browse all definitions of a certain pragma.
> 
> So, now, I extended it with the concept of a user which is the list of all 
> senders minus the methods that are annotated with a pragma. This helps 
> distinguish the meaning of a pragma by looking at the code where it is being 
> used. Perhaps we can find a better name than users.
> 
> You can see these users in the inspector and in spotter:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should build on this.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> Doru
> 
> 
>> On Jun 24, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> A pragma may be very obscure. For example, I do: 
>> Pragma allInstances anyOne
>> => 
>> 
>> If I want to know more about this  is actually 
>> quite challenging. 
>> I see many methods having that pragma, but not idea what it is for. 
>> I see that Halt>>signalerContext and Process>>complete: that use that pragma 
>> somehow. But still, I have no idea when I should use that pragma in my 
>> method.
>> 
>> What about having a way to comment pragma? Maybe something like 
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Object subclass: #Pragma
>>  instanceVariableNames: 'method keyword arguments comment'
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>> 
>> And a simple way to annotate pragmas?
>> Just an idea. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre
>> -- 
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
> 
> "What we can governs what we wish."
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Clément Bera]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Jan Vrany  wrote:

>
> In Java you *cannot* annotate any language element. You can annotate
> class, methods, instance variables, method arguments and temporaries and
> packages.
>
>
> Then when I take an annotation, for example an hibernate annotation:
>
> @Entity@Table(name = "EMPLOYEE")
>
> In the case of Hibernate, these annotation are for a class and they are
> used at *runtime* to bind the class instances with database entries
> (elements of this class are stored in the table EMPLOYEE).
>
> Now I've never seen anyone doing that, but as you can access the
> annotation at runtime, and you can extract from the annotation its name and
> its parameters (for example you could extract "Table" and "name ->
> EMPLOYEE". Then, using the Java reflective features, you can do something
> like:
>
> method = obj.getClass().getMethod(methodName, param1.class, param2.class, ..);
>
> method.invoke(obj, arg1, arg2,...);
>
> And this way you execute a method named "Table", "name" or "EMPLOYEE" with
> the parameter you want, as you could execute a method from any string
> matching a method name. We have the same primitive in Pharo on
> CompiledMethod.
>
>
> I would not say that pragmas are more powerful in Java. Can you give an
> example of something you can do with the Java annotation that you can't do
> with Pharo pragmas ?
>
>
> Out of a curiosity,  how can I annotate class, instance variable, method
> argument or temporary, or package.
> How can I annotate the pragma definition itself? How can I retrieve
> annotations of a pragma definition?
>
> I mean, I understand that you can *achieve* same effect, but you *can*
> achieve it as well with no pragma support at all.
>

Agreed. We can do the same thing, but we do it differently.


> Jan
>
> In Slang we use pragma to annotate argument and temporary variables and it
> works just fine. When you describe in Pharo classes and instance variables
> using Magritte you can do the same thing as just annotating them.
>
>
>
> Stef
>>
>>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Jan Vrany]

In Java you *cannot* annotate any language element. You can annotate 
class, methods, instance variables, method arguments and temporaries 
and packages.



Then when I take an annotation, for example an hibernate annotation:
@Entity
@Table(name = "EMPLOYEE")
In the case of Hibernate, these annotation are for a class and they 
are used at *runtime* to bind the class instances with database 
entries (elements of this class are stored in the table EMPLOYEE).


Now I've never seen anyone doing that, but as you can access the 
annotation at runtime, and you can extract from the annotation its 
name and its parameters (for example you could extract "Table" and 
"name -> EMPLOYEE". Then, using the Java reflective features, you can 
do something like:


method = obj.getClass().getMethod(methodName, param1.class, 
param2.class, ..);

method.invoke(obj, arg1, arg2,...);
And this way you execute a method named "Table", "name" or "EMPLOYEE" 
with the parameter you want, as you could execute a method from any 
string matching a method name. We have the same primitive in Pharo on 
CompiledMethod.



I would not say that pragmas are more powerful in Java. Can you give 
an example of something you can do with the Java annotation that you 
can't do with Pharo pragmas ?


Out of a curiosity,  how can I annotate class, instance variable, 
method argument or temporary, or package.
How can I annotate the pragma definition itself? How can I retrieve 
annotations of a pragma definition?


I mean, I understand that you can *achieve* same effect, but you *can* 
achieve it as well with no pragma support at all.


Jan

In Slang we use pragma to annotate argument and temporary variables 
and it works just fine. When you describe in Pharo classes and 
instance variables using Magritte you can do the same thing as just 
annotating them.





Stef

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Clément Bera]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, stepharo  wrote:

>
>
>> +1.  I can't stress enough how useful it is to make pragmas real
>> selectors with implementations and to try and apply them using
>> perform:withArguments:. That's when their real power comes in.
>>
>> For example, if you have some method that wants to be added to some tool,
>> make its pragma a message with all the information you need to add it as
>> arguments (things like its position or priority relative to other
>> additions, its name in the list of components, an icon to use, a string for
>> fly-by help) and then implement a builder class whose methods match these
>> pragmas so that when the builder performs the pragma it adds the method to
>> the tool, in a given position, with a given icon and fly-by help etc.
>>
>> In most other systems method annotations are simply that, just passive
>> labels.  But in Smalltalk these are executable.  You can browse for senders
>> and implementors, you can execute them using a visitor pattern.  Much more
>> powerful.
>>
>> Hi eliot
>
> For the pragmas paper I read about annotation in Java and from what I
> learned they are more powerful in Java.
> They can annotate any language elements and they can also be executed (I
> have to discuss with a Java expert to get it).
>
>
In Java you *cannot* annotate any language element. You can annotate class,
methods, instance variables, method arguments and temporaries and packages.

Then when I take an annotation, for example an hibernate annotation:

@Entity@Table(name = "EMPLOYEE")

In the case of Hibernate, these annotation are for a class and they are
used at *runtime* to bind the class instances with database entries
(elements of this class are stored in the table EMPLOYEE).

Now I've never seen anyone doing that, but as you can access the annotation
at runtime, and you can extract from the annotation its name and its
parameters (for example you could extract "Table" and "name -> EMPLOYEE".
Then, using the Java reflective features, you can do something like:

method = obj.getClass().getMethod(methodName, param1.class, param2.class, ..);

method.invoke(obj, arg1, arg2,...);

And this way you execute a method named "Table", "name" or "EMPLOYEE" with
the parameter you want, as you could execute a method from any string
matching a method name. We have the same primitive in Pharo on
CompiledMethod.


I would not say that pragmas are more powerful in Java. Can you give an
example of something you can do with the Java annotation that you can't do
with Pharo pragmas ?

In Slang we use pragma to annotate argument and temporary variables and it
works just fine. When you describe in Pharo classes and instance variables
using Magritte you can do the same thing as just annotating them.



Stef
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[stepharo]

+1.  I can't stress enough how useful it is to make pragmas real 
selectors with implementations and to try and apply them using 
perform:withArguments:. That's when their real power comes in.


For example, if you have some method that wants to be added to some 
tool, make its pragma a message with all the information you need to 
add it as arguments (things like its position or priority relative to 
other additions, its name in the list of components, an icon to use, a 
string for fly-by help) and then implement a builder class whose 
methods match these pragmas so that when the builder performs the 
pragma it adds the method to the tool, in a given position, with a 
given icon and fly-by help etc.


In most other systems method annotations are simply that, just passive 
labels.  But in Smalltalk these are executable.  You can browse for 
senders and implementors, you can execute them using a visitor 
pattern.  Much more powerful.



Hi eliot

For the pragmas paper I read about annotation in Java and from what I 
learned they are more powerful in Java.
They can annotate any language elements and they can also be executed (I 
have to discuss with a Java expert to get it).


Stef

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Richard Sargent]

Ben Coman wrote
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Clément Bera <

> bera.clement@

> >
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi.
>>
>> Pragmas are selectors hence they're browsable. You can implement a method
>> somewhere with the pragma selector name that includes the documentation.
>> In
>> VW they were careful about that and most, if not all, of their pragmas
>> are
>> carefully commented this way.
>>
>>
> Should this be concentrated in a class like PragmaDocumentation, or spread
> out (I don't know how).

Since pragmas are an open set and can be added by any package, concentrating
them in one place doesn't sound like a good idea. The best place to have the
comments is with the code. If the pragmas name real selectors, comment the
implementation. If the pragmas are merely tags, comment the method that
declares them as pragmas (e.g. VisualWorks requires you to declare the
symbols as pragmas before using them).

Examples:
SUnit.TestCase class>>#testMethodTags declares a couple of pragma selectors
for instance methods.
testMethodTags
"Any method tagged with a  pragma is considered a test selector
candidate"
" tags are used to compute instance specific resources for the
tagged test. The argument is a symbol for the class name, or a binding
reference to the same."


^#(#test #uses:)

SUnit.TestCase class>>#testResourceTags declares a class method pragma for
resources.
testResourceTags
" tags are used to compute instance specific resources for 
the
tagged test. The argument is a symbol for the class name, or a binding
reference to the same."


^#(#resource)

ApplicationModel class>>menuMethodPragmas declares a whole slew of selectors
for menus. But it neglects to provide comments in it or in the list of
selectors in the Menu class.
menuMethodPragmas



^Menu pragmas

However, VW does comment the actual methods:
computedSubmenu: label nameKey: key menu: menuIDs position: position
"This pragma expects the body of the method marked with it
to answer a Menu that will be used as a submenu with the
label and position specified by the pragma."




> cheers -ben
> 
> 
>> For example, if you have the pragma 
> 
>  and you implement the method
>> MyClass class >> #foo with some comments in it and you can double click
>> on
>> the pragma 
> 
>  to select its content (foo) and press Cmd+M (or right
>> click implementors) to get to the method having the documentation.
>>
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel <

> alexandre.bergel@

> > > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> A pragma may be very obscure. For example, I do:
>>> Pragma allInstances anyOne
>>> => 
> 
>>>
>>> If I want to know more about this 
> 
>  is actually
>>> quite challenging.
>>> I see many methods having that pragma, but not idea what it is for.
>>> I see that Halt>>signalerContext and Process>>complete: that use that
>>> pragma somehow. But still, I have no idea when I should use that pragma
>>> in
>>> my method.
>>>
>>> What about having a way to comment pragma? Maybe something like
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>>> Object subclass: #Pragma
>>> instanceVariableNames: 'method keyword arguments *comment*'
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>>>
>>> And a simple way to annotate pragmas?
>>> Just an idea.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alexandre
>>> --
>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>





--
View this message in context: 
http://forum.world.st/Having-comments-for-pragma-tp4902987p4903138.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Ben Coman]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Clément Bera 
wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Pragmas are selectors hence they're browsable. You can implement a method
> somewhere with the pragma selector name that includes the documentation. In
> VW they were careful about that and most, if not all, of their pragmas are
> carefully commented this way.
>
>
Should this be concentrated in a class like PragmaDocumentation, or spread
out (I don't know how).

cheers -ben


> For example, if you have the pragma  and you implement the method
> MyClass class >> #foo with some comments in it and you can double click on
> the pragma  to select its content (foo) and press Cmd+M (or right
> click implementors) to get to the method having the documentation.
>



>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel  > wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> A pragma may be very obscure. For example, I do:
>> Pragma allInstances anyOne
>> => 
>>
>> If I want to know more about this  is actually
>> quite challenging.
>> I see many methods having that pragma, but not idea what it is for.
>> I see that Halt>>signalerContext and Process>>complete: that use that
>> pragma somehow. But still, I have no idea when I should use that pragma in
>> my method.
>>
>> What about having a way to comment pragma? Maybe something like
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Object subclass: #Pragma
>> instanceVariableNames: 'method keyword arguments *comment*'
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>> And a simple way to annotate pragmas?
>> Just an idea.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre
>> --
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Eliot Miranda]

> On Jun 24, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Clément Bera  wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Pragmas are selectors hence they're browsable. You can implement a method 
> somewhere with the pragma selector name that includes the documentation. In 
> VW they were careful about that and most, if not all, of their pragmas are 
> carefully commented this way.
> 
> For example, if you have the pragma  and you implement the method 
> MyClass class >> #foo with some comments in it and you can double click on 
> the pragma  to select its content (foo) and press Cmd+M (or right click 
> implementors) to get to the method having the documentation.

+1.  I can't stress enough how useful it is to make pragmas real selectors with 
implementations and to try and apply them using perform:withArguments:. That's 
when their real power comes in.

For example, if you have some method that wants to be added to some tool, make 
its pragma a message with all the information you need to add it as arguments 
(things like its position or priority relative to other additions, its name in 
the list of components, an icon to use, a string for fly-by help) and then 
implement a builder class whose methods match these pragmas so that when the 
builder performs the pragma it adds the method to the tool, in a given 
position, with a given icon and fly-by help etc.

In most other systems method annotations are simply that, just passive labels.  
But in Smalltalk these are executable.  You can browse for senders and 
implementors, you can execute them using a visitor pattern.  Much more powerful.


> 
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel  
>> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>> A pragma may be very obscure. For example, I do: 
>> Pragma allInstances anyOne
>> => 
>> 
>> If I want to know more about this  is actually 
>> quite challenging. 
>> I see many methods having that pragma, but not idea what it is for. 
>> I see that Halt>>signalerContext and Process>>complete: that use that pragma 
>> somehow. But still, I have no idea when I should use that pragma in my 
>> method.
>> 
>> What about having a way to comment pragma? Maybe something like 
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Object subclass: #Pragma
>>  instanceVariableNames: 'method keyword arguments comment'
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>> 
>> And a simple way to annotate pragmas?
>> Just an idea. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre
>> -- 
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Clément Bera]

Hi.

Pragmas are selectors hence they're browsable. You can implement a method
somewhere with the pragma selector name that includes the documentation. In
VW they were careful about that and most, if not all, of their pragmas are
carefully commented this way.

For example, if you have the pragma  and you implement the method
MyClass class >> #foo with some comments in it and you can double click on
the pragma  to select its content (foo) and press Cmd+M (or right
click implementors) to get to the method having the documentation.

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> A pragma may be very obscure. For example, I do:
> Pragma allInstances anyOne
> => 
>
> If I want to know more about this  is actually
> quite challenging.
> I see many methods having that pragma, but not idea what it is for.
> I see that Halt>>signalerContext and Process>>complete: that use that
> pragma somehow. But still, I have no idea when I should use that pragma in
> my method.
>
> What about having a way to comment pragma? Maybe something like
> -=-=-=-=-=-=
> Object subclass: #Pragma
> instanceVariableNames: 'method keyword arguments *comment*'
> -=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> And a simple way to annotate pragmas?
> Just an idea.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>

[Pharo-dev] Having comments for pragma?

[Alexandre Bergel]

Hi!

A pragma may be very obscure. For example, I do: 
Pragma allInstances anyOne
=> 

If I want to know more about this  is actually quite 
challenging. 
I see many methods having that pragma, but not idea what it is for. 
I see that Halt>>signalerContext and Process>>complete: that use that pragma 
somehow. But still, I have no idea when I should use that pragma in my method.

What about having a way to comment pragma? Maybe something like 
-=-=-=-=-=-=
Object subclass: #Pragma
instanceVariableNames: 'method keyword arguments comment'
-=-=-=-=-=-=

And a simple way to annotate pragmas?
Just an idea. 

Cheers,
Alexandre
-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.