On 04.08.2014 21:35, stepharo wrote:> We should write a chapter on
finalization but since I do not know it
> well (and I forget)...
> igor will answer you.
>
> Stef
I found "the" bug. It seems it's a side effect of finalization,
WeakRegistry and cyclic references. I'll write a TestCase for that
TaskIT has a feature named StickyReference, for that propouse, is not
trivial at all, because when you fork you are using a block that has a
reference to a context. In the end even if your variable is nil, your
process is being pointed by the context.
What i did in TaskIT is to have a witness obje
On 05.08.2014 12:10, Santiago Bragagnolo wrote:> TaskIT has a feature
named StickyReference, for that propouse, is not
> trivial at all, because when you fork you are using a block that has a
> reference to a context. In the end even if your variable is nil, your
> process is being pointed by the
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 04:45:46PM +0200, Thomas Bany wrote:
> self nbCall: #( void propagateTLE(orbit_t orbit, NBExternalAddress
> > secondSince, NBExternalAddress out, size_t nbEpoch) )
>
> But it feels like I'm cheating my way trough, by pretty much avoiding any
> type check. Any clue as to why
On 05.08.2014 14:08, Udo Schneider wrote:
I also reduced the testcases to even show a (IMHO) faulty behavior w/o
any process at all. Simple references are sufficient.
I just created a small TestCase showing the (IHMO) faulty behavior. I
hope the intention is clear from the package/var names.
G
On 4 August 2014 16:45, Thomas Bany wrote:
> Hi again !
>
>
> I'm having trouble to call the function with the following prototype :
>
> void propagateTLE(orbit_t orb, double secondSince[], xyz_t * out, size_t
>> nbEpoch)
>
>
> with the corresponding NB call:
>
> self nbCall: #( void propagateTLE
All right !
Tanks again for you answers and kudos for the NB plugin ! I was kinda
scared of doing stuff outside of the image but everything went super smooth.
2014-08-05 16:45 GMT+02:00 Igor Stasenko :
>
>
>
> On 4 August 2014 16:45, Thomas Bany wrote:
>
>> Hi again !
>>
>>
>> I'm having troub
Hi,
I just looked at this page (Firefox 31, Mac OSX 10.9.3) and the images are
zoomed like 500%, they are huge. I think this is not the intent, it would be
good if this is looked at.
Greetings,
On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:12 AM, stepharo wrote:
> "Pharo success stories" is getting started at
>
>
Hi Doru,
I have seen your answer on the thread. I hope to make some test tonight
and keep you posted.
Thanks,
Offray
On 08/05/2014 12:13 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Sorry I could not reply earlier. I will search the other mails where you ask the
question and address it.
Cheers,
Doru
On
On 05 Aug 2014, at 21:11, Johan Fabry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just looked at this page (Firefox 31, Mac OSX 10.9.3) and the images are
> zoomed like 500%, they are huge. I think this is not the intent, it would be
> good if this is looked at.
yes, we are aware.
We are on our way to fix it, pleas
Udo Schneider wrote:
On 05.08.2014 14:08, Udo Schneider wrote:
I also reduced the testcases to even show a (IMHO) faulty behavior w/o
any process at all. Simple references are sufficient.
I just created a small TestCase showing the (IHMO) faulty behavior. I
hope the intention is clear from the
11 matches
Mail list logo
