I'm a member of several communities which are welcoming and diverse,
without a explicit Code of Conduct. That's doesn't mean that such
communities doesn't see the political nature of technology, or that the
way people participate on such communities is not deeply informed on who
the participants ar
> On Sep 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, Ramon Leon wrote:
>
> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/blob/Pharo8.0/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
Thanks. I’ve submitted a PR to use ACM. Let’s move the discussion to
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4637.
On 2019-09-17 5:11 p.m., James Foster wrote:
If there was, indeed, adoption of a “Covenant” it should have been done by the
board whose role “is to make decisions if in the future the community can't
decide on a course of action” (https://pharo.org/about).
I suggest that we suspend discussion
One side-effect of the “Covenant” discussion is that it is necessarily
political, which is something that many (rightly, in my view) are trying to
avoid. While I agree with most of the views expressed so far, I cringe because
I anticipate that someone who disagrees will feel the compulsion to te
You just wrote what I didn't quite dare to say.
Thank you.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 11:29, Ramon Leon wrote:
> On 2019-09-17 2:34 p.m., Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:
> > as I say the important issue is to provide safe
> > spaces via explicit or implicit rules
>
> I understand, I just disagr
On 2019-09-17 4:26 p.m., Richard O'Keefe wrote:
I see the
so-called "Covenant" that we are discussing as another example of this urge to
micro-control other people. It has me nervously looking for the exit.
I couldn't agree more.
--
Ramón León
On 2019-09-17 2:34 p.m., Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:
as I say the important issue is to provide safe
spaces via explicit or implicit rules
I understand, I just disagree. These are of course my personal opinions, others may
disagree. "Safe spaces" are bad things, not good things; the
Correspondents should be warned that the phrase "safe spaces" needs a
trigger warning.
I am not joking here. People who are genuinely sensitive to the
perceptions and
concerns of others really should avoid that concept because there are many
people in
whom it arouses strong negative feelings. Who
Ramon,
I'm not talking about the Covenant code in particular. Is not the only
code out there and as I say the important issue is to provide safe
spaces via explicit or implicit rules. Each community decides which is
the best way to be welcomed and respectful and how this is clear to its
members an
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
wrote:
> For example, in Latin America I have not seen a huge movement about new
> pronouns and I don't know any of such for Spanish.
The movement in LATAM started by the use of gender-neutral plurals,
with some phonetic aberrations
On 2019-09-17 6:28 a.m., Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:
I'm pretty secure that Code of Conducts intent to provide secure spaces beyond
just digital spaces and go also into physical and face to face ones.
The code of conducts intent is to force identity politics into technical spaces
in
Hi,
> I don’t know if there is support for that (I don’t have the time to
check it in detail now).
> But, as a workaround, you may try
>
> - return a void*
>
> myFunction
>^self ffiCall: #(void* myFunction ( void ) )
>
> - and then do the transformation yourself using
Win32WideStrin
Hi,
For me, communities should be secure spaces in general for the people,
not for the arguments, which means that constructive criticism should be
addressed to the arguments in a community without personal attacks on
the people there, as a general rule. I'm pretty secure that Code of
Conducts int
Tomaž Turk wrote:
> OK, great, I'll try it out.
Hi Tomaž,
What you are discovering here would be very useful as a section/chapter in
the uFFI booklet. Just posting it as text here will do if you don’t feel up
to translating to Pillar.
Cheers
Stephan
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:58:17AM -0700, Ramon Leon wrote:
> It's sad to see that Pharo has jumped onto this PC bandwagon, it does not
> bode well for the community.
I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of
people.
All too often they
OK, great, I'll try it out.
Thanks,
Tomaz
-- Original Message --
From: "Guillermo Polito"
To: "Tomaž Turk"
Sent: 17.9.2019 11:56:21
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] uFFI ExternalAddress challenges
I don’t know if there is support for that (I don’t have the time to
check it in detail now).
Hi Tomaz,
Have you checked Win32WideString in Pharo7/8 and its users?
You can do
aWindowsWideString := ‘a wide string’ asWin32WideString.
And then check the senders of Win32WideString, you will find you can declare
ffi signatures like this
removeEnvironmentVariable: nameString
^ self
It seems that there's nothing wrong with the primitive, but with Win32Variant
creation in ExternalStructure class>>fromHandle:, specifically with basicNew
and Win32Variant class as receiver.
In what circumstances the debugger/inspector shows 'error printing' message
(on the result of basicNew)?
Hi Ramon,
I agree completely with you.
Lorenzo
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-boun...@lists.pharo.org] Per conto di Ramon
Leon
Inviato: lunedì 16 settembre 2019 20:58
A: pharo-users@lists.pharo.org
Oggetto: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
On 2019-09-11 1:0
19 matches
Mail list logo
