Weblog Page

From: Victor Mayevski <vitick_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:28:54 -0700

Hello Gustaf,

Is it possible to use the TCL trace on NX objects/methods?

Thanks

From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:36:35 +0300 (EEST)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Gustaf Neumann wrote:

>> In practise this is now causing so many headaches I think I'm going to
>> give up on doing this package using XOTcl that way. There appears to be no
>> (working?) way to run a script within the 'context' of an object, in order
>> to easily parse data which is formed in the style of a Tcl script. This is
>> unfortunate as it would likely have offered clear performance benefits.
>
> If you have some some code, we can look at, we will certainly
> try to help with that.

I'm actually working on a package built on top of normal [binary] which
would allow a clearer definition of the format of the binary data.
Something like:

byenary::scan $data {
     option endian little
     type cellObject {
         short objID
         int8 triByteNum

         int8 $triByteNum triVisibility
     }

     format {
         object root {
             short objNum
             short triNum

             cellObject $objNum objects
         }

         object * children {
             short objID
             short objNum
             short triNum

             cellObject $objNum objects
         }
     }
}

The aim is then that it returns a hierarchy of objects to represent the
data. I actually made a version already, but it parses that format
description manually and continuously. Even if I split the script into
lists, I still have to go through that. The format description is
intentionally made to look like a Tcl script with the idea that later I
could evaluate it in the appropriate context and let Tcl do the work (and
also byte compile it).

Now I'm thinking about doing that not by XOTcl mechanisms but namespaces.
Perhaps that could be the best option.

                               / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/

From: Catherine Letondal <letondal_at_pasteur.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:26:28 +0200

Hi,

I have just re-installed Xotcl 1.0.2 version and succedeed in running my
application with some minor changes since the last xotcl version I used on this
platform (Sparc/Solaris 7) was the 0.9 :-)

I have a segmentation fault that occurs when a command is called from a Tk menu.
The command is attached to the popup by a:
        add command -command
statement on a menu Tk widget that is raised by a tk_popup.

However, the very same command, when called from the tcl (xowish) interpreter, works
and does not produce any core dump. And most menu items also work well.

So my question is: how do I debug such a situation?
Thanks for any help...

-- 
Catherine Letondal -- Pasteur Institute Computing Center

From: Scott Gargash <scottg_at_atc.creative.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:04:20 -0600

Gustaf Neumann <neumann_at_wu-wien.ac.at> wrote on 05/08/2006 02:15:41 PM:


> So, the only restriction is that you are not allowed to remove the mixin
> from o
> in the BEFORE part of M2. If you remove M2 from the BEFORE part of
> M1, there won't be a problem, since foo of M2 won't be called. If you remove
> M2 in AFTER of M2 foo, there would not be a problem either, since "next"
> was alreday executed.

Your explanation is certainly consistent with the behavior I observed. Is this documented somewhere?
It surprised me.

> PS: wouln't be conditional mixins a solution for your problem?

I don't know. What do you mean by "conditional mixin"?

      Scott

From: Scott Gargash <scottg_at_atc.creative.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:00:03 -0700

Is it possible to build XOTcl as universal/fat binary for OS X? What is
the command line for the configure tool ?

Thanks.

        Scott

From: Jim Lynch <jim_at_jam.sessionsnet.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:20:52 -0700

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:03:20 -0700
"Jim Lynch" <jim_at_jam.sessionsnet.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I got an error when building xotcl without tk and wish support where it
> tries to do a chmod on xowish (which of course doesn't exist at that
> point.)
>
> This patch will fix the problem

Actually no it won't, it's broke... needs " ; \ " at the line ends of the
new chmod lines. Here's a better patch (attached).

-Jim

--
Jam sessions community web site: http://jam.sessionsnet.org

From: Murr Florian <florian.murr_at_siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:09:44 +0100

High,
is there a reason why the Windows Binary is only xotcl-1.3.4, but Linux has
xotcl-1.3.5 ?
Cf. http://media.wu-wien.ac.at/download.html#source
<http://media.wu-wien.ac.at/download.html#source>
regards,
- Florian Murr

From: Uwe Zdun <uwe.zdun_at_wu-wien.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:40:13 +0200

Hi,

as far as I know, at the moment no such effort exists. In the very beginning
of designing XOTcl, we had thought about it, but actually we came never back
to this idea, though it is surely an interesting one. Our decision for the
C-based solution was mainly based on efficiency considerations. However, now
I'm pretty sure that a pure Tcl xotcl-lite would perform at a reasonable
speed. Some things would be really tricky, but in a lite version most of them
could be left out.

So the tcl only version idea is around for quite some while. If a few people
would like to help building such a lite version I would definitely
contribute, but at the moment, I fear, I don't have the time to start-off
developing it on my own ... the problem is that starting off with something
could be done relatively quick, but getting it to an industrial level so that
its accepted in tcllib would be much, much more work ...

Uwe


On Saturday 06 July 2002 02:12 pm, Maurice Diamantini wrote:
> Bonjour à tous,
>
> I'd like to try a tcl object system, but I'm looking for a system
> that support a lite version in tcl only, so that I can keep an
> interpeted version of an application.
>
> I know there is stooop which has the big advantage of beeing
> part of the tcllib. But I dont like C++ very much (:-), and I'm
> not sure there is a compiled version of stooop
>
> There is itcl for which there is a tcl only lite version.
> The advantage of itcl is that it is very wide range ported,
> and it seems easier to install that xotcl. Also I is to
> be much like a standard tcl extension.
>
> But I like the concept of xoctl, which seems more
> dynamic and powerfull than itcl, and keep the tcl phylosophy
>
> So my question is :
> Does a tcl only version of xotcl exists (or about to exists)
> which would be a subset of xotcl.
>
> The main fonctionnality I like is a simple inheritage feature
> and some introspection (which methods is supported by
> this class?, ...)
>
> If such a xotcl-lite version could be put is the tcllib, then
> I think it would be the best mean to make xoctl widly use
> (and the the standard tcl object system)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xotcl mailing list - Xotcl_at_alice.wu-wien.ac.at
> http://alice.wu-wien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/xotcl

-- 
Uwe Zdun
Department of Information Systems, Vienna University of Economics
Phone: +43 1 313 36 4796, Fax: +43 1 313 36 746
zdun_at_{xotcl,computer,acm}.org, uwe.zdun_at_wu-wien.ac.at

From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:35:50 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, jim wrote:

> hi-
>
> i am looking to start scripting on the web with tcl.
> i like the looks of the rivet product because i used php before and the
> xhtml
> embedded in the page with tags looks familiar. i wonder if i can use
> xotcl
> when i script with rivet. i get confused on how one would add an
> extension. isnt the
> web host in control of this. i have to wait for rivet to release the
> windows binaries.
> while i am waiting i could read my tcl scripting manual.

Well as long as the XOTcl library is available on the machine and for
Apache then yes, you can use XOTcl along with Rivet. In fact, that is
exactly what we're doing at the moment :-)

                              / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/

From: Irene Fellner <irene_at_fellner.at>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:56:27 +0100

hi,

danke für die antwort, die bedingung ist hier also dass $elt true (1 ist), oder?

ich frage mich nur, ob man die methode lunique nicht viel einfacher lösen könnte mit:
proc lunique l {
 foreach elt $l {
    set memberArray($elt) 1
}
return [array names memberArray]
}

sie bringt bei mir auf jeden fall das gleiche ergebnis, und ist kürzer und verständlicher ....

lg
irene
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ferdinand Eckert
  To: Irene Fellner
  Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 4:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Xotcl] psnm - aufgabe 1c


  hi,

  genau weiß ich's leider nicht (hatte leider noch keine zeit zu lernen), aber ich würde folgendes vermuten:

  die bedingung ist der term "$memberArray($elt)"
  nachdem eine bedingung immer "true" oder "false" (bzw. 0 oder 1 ist !!!)
  wird hier der wert von memberArray and der stelle $elt abgefragt (und als true/false interpretiert)
  --> ist dieser 0 --> false
  --> ist er != 0 --> true

  zumindest in C ist es so, wenn ich mich richtig erinnere ;-)

  lg Ferdinand


  Irene Fellner wrote:

    hallo,

    bin grad am üben für den test nächste woche :-)
    die lösung von aufgabe 1c (liste - jedes wort nur einmal) versteh ich nicht ganz.
    dh insbesondere folgenden teil der methode lunique:
    foreach elt $l {
    if $memberArray($elt) {
    lappend result $elt
    set memberArray($elt) 0
    }

    ganz konkret kapier ich die if-methode nicht - hier fehlt doch die bedingung oder??
    vielleicht kennt sich ja jemand aus, und kann mir es erklären ...

    danke,
    lg
    irene