Re: [Pharo-dev] Discussing FileSystem >> #workingDirectory and VM process getcwd(3)

I think it was a shell command and`sudo` may have been required ... I had to do it with Mavericks (or earlier) ... it's possible that with Yosemite that it is no longer possible:) I haven't checked for a while. Dale On 3/23/16 5:46 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: Hi Dale, On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at

Re: [Pharo-dev] Discussing FileSystem >> #workingDirectory and VM process getcwd(3)

Hi Dale, On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Dale Henrichs < dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > Mariano, > > I think this _is_ the OSX issue that I was talking about ... there is a > way to arrange for PWD to be set correctly when double clicking apps, but > it has to be set a system option

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 21:21 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda : > Personally I would rename ShouldExpression to ExecutedBlock or > ExecutedExpression, keep #should as nice syntactic sugar, but provide > #executed as the standard way of creating ExecutedExpressions. After all > this is useful

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 19:39 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda : > This reads nicely. What is the class of the value answered by #should? > What can you do with it? > It returns ShouldExpression instance which wraps receiver to execute following messages. And following messages are supposed

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

Hi Denis, On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-03-23 14:05 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > >> [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were done >> [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were doneInOrder >> > > I really like this

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Denis Kudriashov > wrote: > > > > 2016-03-23 12:38 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > >> > >> Maybe... > >>[ mock someMessage. mock2 somMessage2 ]

Re: [Pharo-dev] Discussing FileSystem >> #workingDirectory and VM process getcwd(3)

as long as $PWD is respected, I don't think either way really matters On 23 March 2016 at 11:53, Damien Cassou wrote: > Mariano Martinez Peck writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Damien Pollet > > wrote: > > >

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 14:05 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were done > [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were doneInOrder > I really like this idea. Thank's. What about: [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] should beDone [mock someMessage.

[Pharo-dev] [Ann] New version of StateSpecs 2.0

Hello. I glad to present new version of StateSpecs: - should expressions based on normal message sends instead of pragma magic Pragma based approach allows to write very natural expressions like 1 should be an instance of: Number But it is completely not practical because it is

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-03-23 12:38 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : >> >> Maybe... >>[ mock someMessage. mock2 somMessage2 ] shouldve beenSent >> >> but maybe you don't want different #shouldXXX messages. > > > Thank

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 12:38 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > Maybe... >[ mock someMessage. mock2 somMessage2 ] shouldve beenSent > > but maybe you don't want different #shouldXXX messages. > Thank you too, Ben. And yes it will not follow other should expressions. But it would not be bad to

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-03-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Max Leske : >> >> But from English it not sounds like it should be occurred in past. Normally thats my cue ;) but I don't have any great ideas. >> So what correct

Re: [Pharo-dev] Discussing FileSystem >> #workingDirectory and VM process getcwd(3)

Mariano Martinez Peck writes: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Damien Pollet > wrote: > >> Because there is this concept called "consistency" that's interesting to >> have :p >> >> If your code wants $HOME it can ask for it explicitly, same for

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Max Leske : > But from English it not sounds like it should be occurred in past. So what > correct and not long sentence can be used here? maybe: > > mock had received someMessage > > > mock should haveReceived someMessage > > Thank's for

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

> On 23 Mar 2016, at 10:48, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > Hello. > > I prepare new version of Mocketry with many new functions. And I have little > question about some naming. > > It will be possible to verify (at the end of test) that particular message > was happened.

[Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

Hello. I prepare new version of Mocketry with many new functions. And I have little question about some naming. It will be possible to verify (at the end of test) that particular message was happened. My first suggestion was: mock should receive someMessage But from English it not sounds like

[Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core] 5153ef: 50658

Branch: refs/heads/5.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 5153ef622fc2e172d61a9e8163d712ccb0098308 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/5153ef622fc2e172d61a9e8163d712ccb0098308 Author: Jenkins Build Server Date:

[Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core]

Branch: refs/tags/50658 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core