On 17/02/2011 18:08, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Douglas Brebner
mailto:squeakli...@fang.demon.co.uk>>
wrote:
On 16/02/2011 20:13, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
mailto:stephane.duca...@inria.fr>> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Douglas Brebner <
squeakli...@fang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/02/2011 20:13, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
> stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
On 16/02/2011 20:13, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
mailto:stephane.duca...@inria.fr>> wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
mailto:stephane.duca...@inri
On 17 February 2011 01:28, Nicolas Cellier
wrote:
> 2011/2/17 Igor Stasenko :
>> On 17 February 2011 00:51, Nicolas Cellier
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/2/17 Igor Stasenko :
On 16 February 2011 22:00, Stéphane Ducasse
wrote:
> Ok this is my last mail on that topic.
>
apparentl
2011/2/17 Igor Stasenko :
> On 17 February 2011 00:51, Nicolas Cellier
> wrote:
>> 2011/2/17 Igor Stasenko :
>>> On 16 February 2011 22:00, Stéphane Ducasse
>>> wrote:
Ok this is my last mail on that topic.
>>>
>>> apparently not ;)
>>>
> yes now do not think that I'm implying
On 17 February 2011 00:51, Nicolas Cellier
wrote:
> 2011/2/17 Igor Stasenko :
>> On 16 February 2011 22:00, Stéphane Ducasse
>> wrote:
>>> Ok this is my last mail on that topic.
>>>
>>
>> apparently not ;)
>>
>>>
yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement
>>>
2011/2/17 Igor Stasenko :
> On 16 February 2011 22:00, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> Ok this is my last mail on that topic.
>>
>
> apparently not ;)
>
>>
>>> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
>>> decompiler.
>>> Now we have something else to do that dealing
On 16 February 2011 22:00, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Ok this is my last mail on that topic.
>
apparently not ;)
>
>> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
>> decompiler.
>> Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a
>> stupid
On 16 February 2011 21:59, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>>> wrote:
>>> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
>>> decompiler.
>>> Now we have so
On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
> A quick comment...
>
> This whole thing/discussion/war reminds me of the Squeak mailing list, long
> ago, in its worst days... Let's all take a deep breath for a second and put
> things in perspective : aren't we just talking about 2 (TWO)
A quick comment...
This whole thing/discussion/war reminds me of the Squeak mailing list, long
ago,
in its worst days... Let's all take a deep breath for a second and put things
in perspective : aren't we just talking about 2 (TWO) methods here? Is this a
do-it-now-or-die type of decision?
Ok this is my last mail on that topic.
> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
> decompiler.
> Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a
> stupid method.
> This is all my point.
> Let us focus on the real problems. eliot is cr
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> wrote:
>> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
>> decompiler.
>> Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
> decompiler.
> Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a
> stupid method.
> This is all my point.
> Let us focus on the
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
> yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
> decompiler.
> Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a
> stupid method.
> This is all my point.
> L
yes now do not think that I'm implying that you are not able to implement a
decompiler.
Now we have something else to do that dealing with the optimisation of a stupid
method.
This is all my point.
Let us focus on the real problems. eliot is crying for caseOf: but we have 3
users.
Stef
On Fe
Hi,
What about postponing this dicussion to the week of the 7th of march? This will
be far easier...
(and I really did not have the energy to follow this discussion. Most of the
emails in this thread I did
not read).
Marcus
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
> On
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
> stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
> > Eliot a final question.
> > So how will you handle
Igor
my point is how can we migrate from the old compiler to the new one that will
probably not support inlining
of caseOf: if we rely or have caseOf: in the old compiler.
If we do not need case of inlining then we can remove it and we can also clean
Object.
Stef
On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:42 PM,
On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
> But it looks like a DSL to me.
>
> No its not. caseOf: is valid Smalltalk. It is another control structure
> defined in the library rather than by the language, just like
On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
> Eliot a final question.
> So how will you handle OPAL compiler change in Cog?
> Do you require that marcus and jorge have to deal with decompiler of caseOf:
> in addition to
On 16 February 2011 18:15, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
>>
>> Eliot a final question.
>> So how will you handle OPAL compiler change in Cog?
>> Do you require that marcus and jorge have to deal with decompiler of
>> caseOf: in addition to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Eliot a final question.
> So how will you handle OPAL compiler change in Cog?
> Do you require that marcus and jorge have to deal with decompiler of
> caseOf: in addition to all the rest?
> Is it a strong requ
Eliot a final question.
So how will you handle OPAL compiler change in Cog?
Do you require that marcus and jorge have to deal with decompiler of caseOf: in
addition to all the rest?
Is it a strong requirement? Because then this is clear that Opal will be
delayed. But may be it is not that importa
n
> A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
> (Albert Einstein)
>
>
> From: Eliot Miranda
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 3:56:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
> case
n of radius zero.
> (Albert Einstein)
>
>
> From: Eliot Miranda
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 3:56:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
> caseOf:otherwise:
>
&g
2011/2/15 Eliot Miranda :
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Nicolas Cellier
> wrote:
>>
>> 2011/2/15 Eliot Miranda :
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Eliot
>> >>
>> >> I can understand that well. Now we could just let this code in VMMa
uary 15, 2011 3:56:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
caseOf:otherwise:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
wrote:
Eliot
>
>I can understand that well. Now we could just let this code in VMMaker and not
>inlining.
>We fix 8 users
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/15 Eliot Miranda :
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Eliot
> >>
> >> I can understand that well. Now we could just let this code in VMMaker
> an
2011/2/15 Eliot Miranda :
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> I can understand that well. Now we could just let this code in VMMaker and
>> not inlining.
>> We fix 8 users and we are done. I have concerned that we have a complex
>> solution because i
Em 15-02-2011 16:55, Schwab,Wilhelm K escreveu:
> I am not completely certain who is on which side here anymore, other than
> #caseOf: is at the center of it. I think I saw Eliot say that Cog uses it;
> if I got that right, it's a pretty compelling reason to keep it in the image.
> Doing that,
2011/2/15 Eliot Miranda :
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 15 February 2011 19:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Eliot
>> >>
>> >> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slan
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Eliot
>
> I can understand that well. Now we could just let this code in VMMaker and
> not inlining.
> We fix 8 users and we are done. I have concerned that we have a complex
> solution because it is complex
>
Eliot
I can understand that well. Now we could just let this code in VMMaker and not
inlining.
We fix 8 users and we are done. I have concerned that we have a complex
solution because it is complex
for a couple of use case. Of course we can do nothing (and we will probably not
do it now) but
On 15 February 2011 20:58, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 15 February 2011 19:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Eliot
>> >>
>> >> you use caseOf: for the
On 15 February 2011 20:38, wrote:
> Em 15/02/2011 17:03, Igor Stasenko < siguc...@gmail.com > escreveu:
> On 15 February 2011 19:23, wrote:
>
>> > Em 13/02/2011 21:21, Stephen Taylor < stephen.tay...@bom.gov.au >
>> > escreveu: Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> You have some integers: 0
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 15 February 2011 19:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Eliot
> >>
> >> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
> >> Now this means that
>
Em 15/02/2011 17:03, Igor Stasenko < siguc...@gmail.com > escreveu:
On 15 February 2011 19:23, wrote:
> > Em 13/02/2011 21:21, Stephen Taylor < stephen.tay...@bom.gov.au >
> > escreveu: Igor Stasenko wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >> You have some integers: 0 83 67 77 68 72 80 112 113 87 70
> >> >> 82
On 15 February 2011 20:15, wrote:
> Em 15/02/2011 10:37, Igor Stasenko < siguc...@gmail.com > escreveu:
>
> Whereas I understand we are community of spirited and humorous programmers, I
> think that statements like:
>
>> I agree. Then probably, Pharo should move it to separate
>> 'Cr
On Feb 15, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
> Eliot
>
> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
> Now this means that
>- it does not need to be inlined
>
> No. If it is not inlined the si
On 15 February 2011 19:59, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> wrote:
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
>> Now this means that
>> - it does not need to be inlined
>
> No. If it is not inlined the si
Em 15/02/2011 10:37, Igor Stasenko < siguc...@gmail.com > escreveu:
Whereas I understand we are community of spirited and humorous programmers, I
think that statements like:
> I agree.Then probably, Pharo should move it to separate
> 'Crap-compat' package.
Are not amenable to the "
On 15 February 2011 19:23, wrote:
> Em 13/02/2011 21:21, Stephen Taylor < stephen.tay...@bom.gov.au > escreveu:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>>
>> >> You have some integers: 0 83 67 77 68 72 80 112 113 87 70
>> >> 82. When a variable's value is equal to any of these...
>>
>> > Don't try to co
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Eliot
>
> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
> Now this means that
>- it does not need to be inlined
>
No. If it is not inlined the simulator will go *much* slower. e.g.
e.inria.fr] On Behalf Of csra...@bol.com.br
[csra...@bol.com.br]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:23 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
caseOf:otherwise:
Em 13/02/2011 21:21, Stephen Taylor < stephen.tay...@bom.gov.
Adrien,
Case (a.k.a "switch") constructs are not "so bad in Smalltalk" only, they are
considered bad OO practice and it is tabled in the "The Object-Orientation
Abuse" code smell when refactoring.
there is an abundant literature about it that you can find online, so I'll
refrain to make this p
@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Stephen Taylor
[stephen.tay...@bom.gov.au]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 6:21 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
caseOf:otherwise:
Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> You have some inte
Em 13/02/2011 21:21, Stephen Taylor < stephen.tay...@bom.gov.au > escreveu:
Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> >> You have some integers: 0 83 67 77 68 72 80 112 113 87 70
> >> 82. When a variable's value is equal to any of these...
>
> > Don't try to convince me that there are sort of problems whic
2011/2/15 Igor Stasenko :
> On 15 February 2011 12:50, David T. Lewis wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 08:00:18AM +0100, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
>>> Eliot
>>>
>>> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
>>> Now this means that
>>> - it does not need to be inlined
>>>
>>> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
>>> Now this means that
>>> - it does not need to be inlined
>>> - it could be packaged with VMMaker
>>>
>>> Are these two points correct?
>>
>> No.
? Apparently igor is just saying the contrary. You probably say no f
On 15 February 2011 12:50, David T. Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 08:00:18AM +0100, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
>> Eliot
>>
>> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
>> Now this means that
>> - it does not need to be inlined
>> - it could be packaged with V
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 08:00:18AM +0100, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
> Eliot
>
> you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
> Now this means that
> - it does not need to be inlined
> - it could be packaged with VMMaker
>
> Are these two points correct?
No.
VMMaker
Eliot
you use caseOf: for the generation of C in Slang and VM maker.
Now this means that
- it does not need to be inlined
- it could be packaged with VMMaker
Are these two points correct?
Stef
you should follow my lecture if one day they let me do it at Lille.
Why Boolean operations are not using ifTrue:ifFalse: everywhere?
I spent two hours explaining that point.
Stef
On Feb 14, 2011, at 11:33 PM, Adrien BARREAU wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry to interrupt that discussion, but I read
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:43 PM, stephane ducasse
> wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
> Could we agree to deprecate caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:?
> it will simply the compiler, decompiler and also we do not need that at all.
>
> | z | z
On 14 February 2011 23:33, Adrien BARREAU wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry to interrupt that discussion, but I read all the messages about
> that subject since you started to discuss it and I really would like to
> understand a thing:
> Why does the case structure seem to be so bad in Smalltalk?
>
> I h
Hi,
I'm sorry to interrupt that discussion, but I read all the messages about that
subject since you started to discuss it and I really would like to understand a
thing:
Why does the case structure seem to be so bad in Smalltalk?
I hope some of you could explain me :)
Adrien.
Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 14 February 2011 01:32, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
That's where I typically use a dictionary.
Indeed.
Yes - sensible answer from Wilhelm Schwab.
You didn't answer the question though.
Because it sounds rhetoric to me.
How to deal with randomly put integers coming
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 14 February 2011 22:38, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:43 PM, stephane ducasse <
> stephane.duca...@free.fr>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi guys
> >>
> >> let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
On 14 February 2011 22:38, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:43 PM, stephane ducasse
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
>> Could we agree to deprecate caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:?
>> it will simply the compiler, decompil
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:43 PM, stephane ducasse
wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
> Could we agree to deprecate caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:?
> it will simply the compiler, decompiler and also we do not need that at
> all.
>
> | z | z := {[#a]->[
> Yes, I myself find the implementation hackish, but I wish I could see
> more pragmatic analysis based on exact usage of this message.
> The discussion isn't going forward, every one camping on its position.
> 1) Where is the message used ?
> 2) How would you refactor the senders ?
> 3) Does spe
On 14 February 2011 15:57, Henrik Sperre Johansen
wrote:
>
> I agree with both Igor and Levente.
>
> Uses of caseOf: is often times solvable in more "elegant" ways.
>
> Though, I think in f.ex. HandMorph>>#processEvents and
> UTF8TextConverter>>nextFromStream:, it would actually *improve* readabi
I agree with both Igor and Levente.
Uses of caseOf: is often times solvable in more "elegant" ways.
Though, I think in f.ex. HandMorph>>#processEvents and
UTF8TextConverter>>nextFromStream:, it would actually *improve* readability
to use it.
Got any good refactoring to symbolics for those two,
Of Stephen Taylor
> [stephen.tay...@bom.gov.au]
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 6:21 PM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
> caseOf:otherwise:
>
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>>> You have
ia.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
caseOf:otherwise:
Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> You have some integers: 0 83 67 77 68 72 80 112 113 87 70 82. When a
>> variable's value is equal to any of these...
> Don't try to convince me that there
Igor Stasenko wrote:
You have some integers: 0 83 67 77 68 72 80 112 113 87 70 82. When a
variable's value is equal to any of these...
Don't try to convince me that there are sort of problems which can be
solved only by using case statement :)
You didn't answer the question though.
First,
On 13 February 2011 17:44, Ricardo Moran wrote:
> Of course discussion is good. But turning your position into a religion and
> blaming other parties ignorance is bad. That's what the discussion seemed to
> be heading (at least to me) and I just tried to avoid that.
> Maybe I'm just too new in thi
t; seconds slower? There's always another side to what "efficiency" means
> to everyone.
>
> My 2 cents!
>
> :)
>
>
>
> -
> Benoit St-Jean
> Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
> A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
> (Albert Einstein)
>
>
>
mage (effectively removing it), but leave
it in place for those who want to use it their own code??
Bill
From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr
[pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Benoit St-Jean
[bstj...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February
Yes, I myself find the implementation hackish, but I wish I could see
more pragmatic analysis based on exact usage of this message.
The discussion isn't going forward, every one camping on its position.
1) Where is the message used ?
2) How would you refactor the senders ?
3) Does speed degrade ?
4
t-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Benoit St-Jean
[bstj...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and
caseOf:otherwise:
Let's get to the point here... Most people
Of course discussion is good. But turning your position into a religion and
blaming other parties ignorance is bad. That's what the discussion seemed to
be heading (at least to me) and I just tried to avoid that.
Maybe I'm just too new in this community (and smalltalk in general, for that
matter)
&
simplicity are good, not evil in Smalltalk!
-
Benoit St-Jean
Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
(Albert Einstein)
From: Levente Uzonyi
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Sent: Sun, Febr
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
On 12 Feb 2011, at 18:41, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
~27x slowdown in this case.
I personally never heard of #caseOf:otherwise !
It feels like a hack that is not often needed.
You don't need it often, but it's sometimes useful.
If after wri
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 13 February 2011 02:58, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Please read the Ian's paper about switch statement vs message sends..
You will discover something surprising for you.
Link please?
That's C's switch statem
On 13 February 2011 09:05, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also think we do not need caseOf: in the default distribution.
>
> It is probably useful for some cases (like dealing with integers from some
> external source as mentioned by Levente), but those cases are so rare that we
> should not aff
You got the process :)
I like that we really discuss (because sometimes I'm wrong and I have no
problem to change my mind :)
I reminded me the discussion we got two yeras ago about number and nicolas
convinced me that his approach
was good about float (not been mathematical numbers).
Stef
On F
Le 13/02/2011 04:05, Ricardo Moran a écrit :
Ok, guys... I'm sorry to interrupt this polite discussion, but this is
taking nowhere.
no, it allows people to make their own opinion.
interesting thread.
Now I can say that I would be more for getting rid of case of.
thanks
Alain
On 12 Feb 2011, at 18:41, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> ~27x slowdown in this case.
I personally never heard of #caseOf:otherwise !
It feels like a hack that is not often needed.
If after writing correct code you need to optimize integer/byte handling, there
are many solutions, check any book on al
Hi,
I also think we do not need caseOf: in the default distribution.
It is probably useful for some cases (like dealing with integers from some
external source as mentioned by Levente), but those cases are so rare that we
should not affect everyone with this message.
Cheers,
Doru
On 13 Feb 2
Hi ricardo, igor and levente
I really want to remove caseOf: since years.
Why:
- conceptually wrong (even if this may be nice to have for $A and
numbers)
- to me it looks like coming from another age
- never needs to use it: of course other people may of course
-
On 13 February 2011 04:05, Ricardo Moran wrote:
> But please don't ban people who are willing to sacrifice a little
> readability for performance reasons. Thanks.
Then C language is your choice! It is full of such sacrifices :)
But can i ask you to not turn smalltalk into C , please?
> Best reg
Ok, guys... I'm sorry to interrupt this polite discussion, but this is
taking nowhere. Having such strong arguments (for or against) is not helpful
for anybody.
We all know using #caseOf:otherwise: it's not exactly good style, but
sometimes you need to compromise between design and efficiency, and
On 13 February 2011 02:58, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> Please read the Ian's paper about switch statement vs message sends..
>> You will discover something surprising for you.
>
> Link please?
>
>
Here:
www.piumarta.com/pepsi/objmodel.pdf-
-
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 02:58 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 02:26 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
I know what's premature optimization.
It appear that you know but doesn't understan
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 02:58 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Miguel Cobá wrote:
>
> > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 02:26 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> >
> >> I know what's premature optimization.
> >
> > It appear that you know but doesn't understand. See below.
> >
> >>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Please read the Ian's paper about switch statement vs message sends..
You will discover something surprising for you.
Link please?
Levente
Levente
Levente
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenk
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 02:26 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
I know what's premature optimization.
It appear that you know but doesn't understand. See below.
What I do differently than other
people (including you) is:
- if I can choose from differ
On 13 February 2011 02:26, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 13 February 2011 00:59, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
Don't try to convince me that there are sort of problems which can be
solved only by u
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 02:26 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> I know what's premature optimization.
It appear that you know but doesn't understand. See below.
> What I do differently than other
> people (including you) is:
> - if I can choose from different solutions for some problem, then
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 13 February 2011 00:59, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Don't try to convince me that there are sort of problems which can be
solved only by using case statement :)
We all know that it can be solved, but the solut
On 13 February 2011 00:59, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> Don't try to convince me that there are sort of problems which can be
>> solved only by using case statement :)
>
> We all know that it can be solved, but the solution won't be nicer at all,
> instead
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Don't try to convince me that there are sort of problems which can be
solved only by using case statement :)
We all know that it can be solved, but the solution won't be nicer at all,
instead it will be a lot slower.
First, get rid of these integer
On 13 February 2011 00:17, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> oh come on. Switch statement should live where it belongs to: C code.
>
> It's nothing like C's switch statement, and I'm sure you know that.
>
>>
>> Why we should support this ridiculous syntax const
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
oh come on. Switch statement should live where it belongs to: C code.
It's nothing like C's switch statement, and I'm sure you know that.
Why we should support this ridiculous syntax constructs in smalltalk?
What's so ridiculous about it?
IMO:
A
On 12 February 2011 18:41, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, stephane ducasse wrote:
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
>> Could we agree to deprecate caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:?
>> it will simply the compiler, decompiler and also we do n
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi guys
let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
Could we agree to deprecate caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:?
it will simply the compiler, decompiler and also we do not need that at all.
| z | z := {[#a]->[1+1]. ['b' asSymbol]->[2
Hi guys
let us do another pass at cleaning and realigning the system.
Could we agree to deprecate caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:?
it will simply the compiler, decompiler and also we do not need that at all.
| z | z := {[#a]->[1+1]. ['b' asSymbol]->[2+2]. [#c]->[3+3]}. #b caseOf: z
=>
"| z | z :=
99 matches
Mail list logo
