00:00:07 -!- billstclair [~billstcla@unaffiliated/billstclair] has quit [Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com] 00:00:46 -!- ISF [~ivan@143.106.196.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:01:27 tritchey [~tritchey@c-98-213-213-26.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 00:02:32 msponge [~msponge@nat/google/x-fvjaxzsowjlzdmgn] has joined #lisp 00:02:34 -!- ikki [~ikki@201.155.92.12] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:02:41 qqqqw: the other nice thing about piap is that it has different paths you can follow depending on your level so you dont have to read it cover to cover the first time... 00:02:56 -!- msponge [~msponge@nat/google/x-fvjaxzsowjlzdmgn] has quit [Client Quit] 00:03:20 msponge [~msponge@nat/google/x-heahqcwtrdqsqxvx] has joined #lisp 00:03:23 harag, are there other books you would recommend besides pcl and paip? 00:03:41 -!- benny [~benny@i577A88AF.versanet.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:03:46 -!- msponge [~msponge@nat/google/x-heahqcwtrdqsqxvx] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:04:59 also, do you think that the ideas that one studies in paip are easy to apply to various fields in practical ways, or is it mainly a case study/manual of style? 00:05:03 Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has joined #lisp 00:05:05 -!- Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:05:35 qqqqw: i just started with let over lamda and the art of metaobject protocol ... so cant give an opion yet but have heard good things about them that is why i bought them ;) 00:05:43 billstclair [~billstcla@unaffiliated/billstclair] has joined #lisp 00:05:48 DrDuck [~duck@146.229.119.187] has joined #lisp 00:06:04 Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has joined #lisp 00:06:29 qqqqw: i think piap and lisp in general has a lot that will help you with other languages and programing concepts in general 00:06:31 zelak [~zelak@pdpc/supporter/student/zelak] has joined #lisp 00:06:45 -!- zelak [~zelak@pdpc/supporter/student/zelak] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:07:17 -!- srid [~srid@unaffiliated/srid] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 00:07:18 do you use lisp for work? 00:07:26 We do. 00:07:26 at first I assumed "piap" was just a typo for "paip", but after this many repetitions... is "piap" something else? 00:07:42 lol penryu, i was a bit worried about that too 00:07:45 qqqqw: for example the first two chapters of piap really opened my mind to recursion in new way 00:07:47 but i think it's a typo 00:07:55 lol 00:07:59 sorry typo 00:08:04 oh good. 00:08:06 ok 00:08:18 qqqqw: yes i use lisp for work 00:08:29 and i am still a newbief 00:08:31 what kind of things do you build? 00:08:31 -f 00:09:11 webbased SaaS systems 00:09:18 Software as a Service 00:09:21 I use lisp to build a graph database system (: 00:10:02 you guys really use lisp at work... from the sites I had read it sounded like this was an impossible dream 00:10:21 qqqqw: it's possible, if you're the owner of the company. 00:10:31 ahah yeah you're right 00:10:39 or if you can convince the owners that it's a good business choice (: 00:10:42 qqqqw: start up your own company, and just like PG did, write your software in Common Lisp. 00:11:01 qqqqw: then when you've sold your company to Yahoo or Google, and you can retire, you can write books critisizing CL. 00:11:01 that's what I plan to do 00:11:08 i mean, the first part 00:11:17 qqqqw: and start implementing your own lisp. 00:11:18 -!- MeanWeen [~KAPITAL@cpe-098-026-091-210.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 00:11:26 lol 00:11:35 but actually i'm still reading acl, and i must say it doesn't talk bad about cl in the book, only in that post 00:12:04 it's also true that he's not explicit about where he's talking about lisp and where about cl (contrary of what he says in the post) 00:12:21 if you hadn't warned me I wouldn't have known 00:12:25 note: no mention of FINISHING your own lisp. 00:13:04 penryu, i know that the last project you do to complete the lisp course in my local university is writing a lisp implementation, if this is common practice maybe it's the reason there are so many lisps 00:13:29 xale [~xale@2001:4b98:dc0:51:216:3eff:fef2:58dd] has joined #lisp 00:13:36 MeanWeen [~KAPITAL@cpe-098-026-091-210.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #lisp 00:14:44 qqqqw: I took it more as a jab that pg hasn't finished his lisp++ 00:15:08 he says his favourite dialect is t though 00:15:11 never heard about that 00:16:39 i'm going, bye guys 00:16:43 thank you for the advices 00:16:48 -!- qqqqw [~qwdddf@151.75.185.97] has quit [Quit: Sto andando via] 00:17:39 -!- peterbb [~peterbb@146.247.161.37] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 00:19:31 qsun [~Quan@eth123.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net] has joined #lisp 00:19:47 -!- yroeht [yroeht@server5.tonbnc.fr] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 00:20:03 yroeht [yroeht@server5.tonbnc.fr] has joined #lisp 00:26:09 -!- otwieracz [~gonet9@v6.gen2.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 00:26:27 otwieracz [~gonet9@v6.gen2.org] has joined #lisp 00:27:26 hussaibi [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has joined #lisp 00:27:28 hussaibi_ [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has joined #lisp 00:32:37 xyxu [~xyxu@58.41.14.212] has joined #lisp 00:38:14 -!- MeanWeen [~KAPITAL@cpe-098-026-091-210.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 00:39:09 MeanWeen [~KAPITAL@cpe-098-026-091-210.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #lisp 00:45:50 hakkum [~hakkum@c-67-181-176-186.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 00:48:49 -!- xyxu [~xyxu@58.41.14.212] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:48:51 xyxu1 [~xyxu@58.41.14.212] has joined #lisp 00:55:22 srid [~srid@unaffiliated/srid] has joined #lisp 01:02:35 -!- srid [~srid@unaffiliated/srid] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 01:04:51 -!- LimitSupremum [~greg@c-24-130-147-208.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: LimitSupremum] 01:07:25 neoesque [~neoesque@210.59.147.232] has joined #lisp 01:10:00 -!- neoesque [~neoesque@210.59.147.232] has quit [Client Quit] 01:10:52 dnolen [~davidnole@ool-ad02d909.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lisp 01:12:59 neoesque [~neoesque@210.59.147.232] has joined #lisp 01:25:30 -!- SegFaultAX [~mkbernard@VEROXITY.ipcolo1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:26:31 -!- phryk [~phryk@yggdrasil.phryk.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:28:22 cheier [~amedueces@c-76-107-19-58.hsd1.ms.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 01:28:27 phryk [~phryk@yggdrasil.phryk.net] has joined #lisp 01:30:22 -!- kpreid [~kpreid@216.239.45.23] has quit [Quit: Offline] 01:30:30 -!- wuj [~wuj@207-172-162-191.c3-0.wsd-ubr1.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:32:34 -!- hakkum [~hakkum@c-67-181-176-186.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:38:39 srid [~srid@unaffiliated/srid] has joined #lisp 01:42:10 -!- tali713 [~tali713@c-75-72-220-197.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 01:43:14 pnq [~nick@AC8308CC.ipt.aol.com] has joined #lisp 01:44:45 -!- Yuuhi [benni@p5483D1BC.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:45:00 Yuuhi [benni@p5483D1BC.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lisp 01:48:21 -!- bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has quit [Quit: 25] 01:48:56 -!- blackwol` [~blackwolf@ool-45763541.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:51:36 tali713 [~tali713@c-75-72-220-197.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 01:52:07 -!- taiyal [~taiyal@bb-216-195-184-102.gwi.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 01:57:29 taiyal [~taiyal@bb-216-195-184-102.gwi.net] has joined #lisp 02:00:30 -!- churib [~churib@95.156.194.105] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 02:00:38 churib [~churib@95.156.194.105] has joined #lisp 02:03:07 -!- qsun [~Quan@eth123.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net] has left #lisp 02:06:34 owner [~owner@58.62.67.8] has joined #lisp 02:07:15 sellout [~Adium@108-200-241-113.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lisp 02:10:03 -!- urandom__ [~user@p548A5446.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:10:12 -!- madnificent [~madnifice@83.101.62.132] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:11:09 madnificent [~madnifice@83.101.62.132] has joined #lisp 02:12:12 -!- owner [~owner@58.62.67.8] has left #lisp 02:14:14 Weed [~user@58.62.67.8] has joined #lisp 02:14:38 ISF [~ivan@187.106.54.41] has joined #lisp 02:15:11 -!- Yuuhi [benni@p5483D1BC.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:16:19 Yuuhi [benni@p5483D678.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lisp 02:16:23 -!- Weed [~user@58.62.67.8] has left #lisp 02:24:45 -!- FazLeeeN` [~evian@78.154.210.220] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:32:54 so... if I understand from earlier, CL doesn't take kindly to scheme's nearly fanatical obsession to recursion over iteration? 02:33:04 -!- hussaibi [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 02:33:06 -!- hussaibi_ [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:33:49 dto [~dto@pool-96-252-62-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has joined #lisp 02:35:06 penryu: a programming language or implementation cannot be "fanatically obsessed" 02:35:07 people are 02:35:16 kpreid [~kpreid@adsl-75-36-179-251.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lisp 02:35:35 -!- kpreid [~kpreid@adsl-75-36-179-251.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:36:19 kpreid [~kpreid@adsl-75-36-179-251.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has joined #lisp 02:36:22 oh. I took the utter lack of iteration operators in scheme as sort of a language-wide discouragement 02:36:25 pnkfelix [~Adium@c-71-225-165-188.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 02:36:49 Um, see DO. 02:36:53 Well, Scheme mandates tail recursion where CL doesn't, and CL has many more iteration operators... I thought Scheme had Do, though. 02:37:08 And MAP, and ... 02:37:12 or at least, I've yet to read a scheme text that emphasized them over a well-crafted iterative recursion. 02:37:14 Utter lack, my arse. 02:37:20 Zhivago: yeah. I caught myself. 02:37:51 :D 02:37:53 named let takes up much of iterative load. 02:39:26 owner [~user@58.62.67.8] has joined #lisp 02:39:44 You just need to understand that iteration is a special case of recursion. 02:40:26 CL would be well served by a tail-call operator. 02:40:44 hi!i use emacs+clisp+slime.how to list current loaded packags in this environment?thx 02:41:23 Zhivago: What would such an operator do? Or do you mean something like named let? 02:41:42 Bike: something that guarantees tail calls, or complains loudly otherwise. 02:42:11 An implementation that doesn't do TCO is not worth using 02:42:24 -!- dto [~dto@pool-96-252-62-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 02:42:31 scheme just took that a step further? 02:42:46 drdo: (let ((x nil)) (foo)). Is the call to foo in tail position? 02:42:51 Wouldn't that be a change in the semantics, not an operator? Like how Scheme explicitly details where function calls have to be tail calls. 02:43:05 Scheme didn't take that step - it just provicdes implicit guarantees. 02:43:10 pkhuong: yes 02:43:15 Bikes: Adding an operator changes semantics, yes. 02:43:15 drdo: depends on x. 02:43:16 summersault [~george@189.13.107.13] has joined #lisp 02:43:22 pkhuong: why? 02:43:30 drdo: specials. 02:43:32 Bike: It would be something like funcall, only less horrible to use. 02:43:37 Zhivago: you're very pedantic. 02:43:55 penryu: in this case Bike is the pedantic one. 02:44:09 Bike: e.g., (tail a b c) instead of (a b c) 02:44:11 mandating tco was the "step further" I meant. 02:44:13 Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what this would mean.... oh, I see. 02:46:12 pkhuong: I never liked the idea of using let for both regular and special vars 02:46:15 -!- MeanWeen [~KAPITAL@cpe-098-026-091-210.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 02:46:27 drdo: Baker is of a similar mind. 02:47:08 drdo: how about (block nil ... (foo)) ? 02:47:43 spradnyesh [~pradyus@nat/yahoo/x-qfcejkzlhkeapwqh] has joined #lisp 02:47:47 -!- ISF [~ivan@187.106.54.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 02:48:28 pkhuong: _is_ (foo) in tail position (in CL)? 02:48:28 or catch, tagbody, dynamic-extent allocation, ... 02:48:50 penryu: totally implementation-dependent. 02:48:53 -!- lolsuper_ [~super_@unaffiliated/lolsuper-/x-9881387] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 02:49:04 I suspect that it would probably be better to be able to use let for specials, functions, and recursive bindings, etc -- extending it to specify the nature of the binding clearly. 02:49:17 hi!i use emacs+clisp+slime.how to list current loaded packags in this 02:49:18 environment?thx 02:49:19 -!- McMAGIC--Copy [~McMAGIC--@gateway/tor-sasl/mcmagic--copy] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 02:49:36 But failing that, separation would be reasonable. 02:49:44 clhs list-all-packages 02:49:44 http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_list_a.htm 02:49:49 oudeis [~oudeis@bzq-109-66-212-35.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #lisp 02:50:07 owner: but personnaly, I use (lspack) ie. (com.informatimago.common-lisp.interactive.interactive:lspack) 02:50:13 owner: do you mean packages as in libraries, and programs, or the packages that common lisp use for namespacing? 02:52:24 i just want navigate through the namespace to see all the functions i can use. 02:53:11 owner: DO-SYMBOLS 02:53:57 owner: (lspack "" t) 02:54:01 McMAGIC--Copy [~McMAGIC--@gateway/tor-sasl/mcmagic--copy] has joined #lisp 02:55:18 pjb: Do you like geeky things like type inference or symbolic computation 02:55:30 Yes. 02:55:48 Why do you qualify them of geeky? They're highly practical. 02:56:09 symbolic computation is what makes lisp orderS of magnitude faster than C or C++. 02:58:36 eh? Some do symbolic computation in C or C++. 02:58:52 What is symbolic computation? 02:59:19 serichse` [~user@hmbg-4d06ffc9.pool.mediaWays.net] has joined #lisp 02:59:33 drdo: what lisp has been invented for. 02:59:50 pjb: I've been using lisp for a while and i still have no idea what that means 03:01:01 -!- serichsen [~user@hmbg-4d0688ef.pool.mediaWays.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 03:03:35 (derivate '(+ (* 2 x x) b) 'x) --> (* 2 x) ; is an example. 03:03:50 -!- daniel__1 [~daniel@p5B326A82.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:03:52 pjb: i'm a newcomer.the first lisp book i read is <>,it's very inspiring.i recommended it 03:04:06 -!- codelurker [~codelurke@c-24-91-16-174.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.5] 03:04:07 -!- jleija [~jleija@50.8.10.126] has quit [Quit: leaving] 03:04:13 pjb: What about that makes it symbolic programming? 03:04:13 jleija [~jleija@50.8.10.126] has joined #lisp 03:04:25 How can i take a program and decide wether it is symbolic programming or not? 03:04:28 drdo: it works on symbols. 03:04:31 it would be an even better example if it was right. 03:04:36 A better example would be using pi. 03:04:48 (derivate '(+ (* 2 x x) b) 'x) --> (* 4 x) ; is an example. 03:04:50 But CL doesn't support symbolic computation of that kind. 03:04:50 -!- jleija [~jleija@50.8.10.126] has quit [Client Quit] 03:04:59 You can write programs that do in CL, but the same goes for C. 03:05:07 But it is trivial to implement in any lisp from day 1. 03:05:27 pjb: It's about as easy in some other language 03:05:39 Well, you get symbols for free, at least. :) 03:05:48 -!- krzysz00 [~user@pool-71-170-109-124.dllstx.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:05:57 The difference is that with lisp you can easily use the results of symbolic computation to further compute numerical results. 03:06:18 (funcall (coerce `(lambda (x) ,(derivate '(+ (* 2 x x) b) 'x)) 'function) 42) 03:06:34 daniel__1 [~daniel@p5B3267BD.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lisp 03:06:35 pjb: It wouldn't be hard at all to write a simple evaluator for those numerical expressions 03:06:58 drdo: yes, but lisp allows you to do it for any kind of expression. 03:07:11 -!- upwardindex [~upwardind@modemcable016.209-80-70.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Quit: upwardindex] 03:07:11 -!- DrDuck [~duck@146.229.119.187] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:07:24 And it doesn't use a simple evaluator, but it compiles to efficient code, hence orders of magnitude faster than C or C++. 03:07:51 That's a different thing 03:07:58 Or course, it has more trouble competing with javascript in that area. :) 03:08:04 That's just being able to use the compiler at runtime 03:08:35 jleija [~jleija@50.8.10.126] has joined #lisp 03:08:56 pjb: I understand and agree that lisp is nice when you are working on that sort of problem 03:09:19 But you'd get the same benefits in javascript. :) 03:09:44 dto [~dto@pool-96-252-62-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has joined #lisp 03:10:29 upwardindex [~upwardind@modemcable016.209-80-70.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #lisp 03:11:35 hussaibi [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has joined #lisp 03:11:35 hussaibi_ [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has joined #lisp 03:13:36 -!- gffa [~gffa@unaffiliated/gffa] has quit [Quit: sleep] 03:13:45 [20:55.48] Why do you qualify them of geeky? They're highly practical. ;; because contemporary united states society considers it geeky 03:14:36 Actually, it's looking increasingly less practical in the general domain. 03:14:57 Symbolic computation seems more and more practical. 03:15:00 Especially computer algebra. 03:15:11 Zhivago: What's looking less practical? 03:15:11 He was talking about type inference, iirc. 03:15:24 Why is type inference less practical? 03:15:39 Well type inference seems also more and more practical. 03:15:46 We've moving from monolithic systems to distributed systems. 03:16:05 Quadrescence: practical type inference schemes seem to infer less and less. 03:16:06 And more than that, from consistent monolithic systems to inconsistent distributed systems. 03:16:37 And this imposes hash boundaries upon the extent to which you can make safe inference. 03:16:43 pkhuong: For the record, I don't consider Haskellian systems to be "practical type inference systems" 03:16:56 That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't use them within the various stable islands that occur. 03:17:00 pkhuong: It's fairly easy to get undecidable type inference if your type system is slightly interesting 03:17:29 Just that bridging those islands seems both increasingly difficult and increasingly undesirable. 03:17:36 drdo: undecidable? That's a bit much. 03:18:07 lisp does type inference the best (in my opinion [and the metric is based on practicality]) of all systems. 03:18:12 Which brings you back to a fairly CL-like model of procedures being static islands bridged with dynamic calls, although perhaps not at that granularity. 03:18:51 -!- sellout [~Adium@108-200-241-113.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 03:18:54 -!- Jubb [~ghost@68.34.79.50] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:19:09 pkhuong: what do you want me to say? it's the way it is 03:20:12 drdo: inference will be undecidable if checking is. 03:20:13 Well undecidable is just a poor word to use. 03:20:38 lakkris [kvirc@pool-71-164-233-54.dllstx.fios.verizon.net] has joined #lisp 03:20:54 While it is correct, the word tends to make people turn the other way (see ML style of thinking) 03:20:57 -!- homie [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-130-115.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 03:21:24 Quadrescence: What do you mean? 03:21:26 EXPTIME is decidable. It's not tractable, but decidable. 03:21:45 pkhuong: It might never terminate, is that undecidable enough for you? 03:22:50 -!- bandu [kvirc@unaffiliated/bandu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:23:35 leo2007 [~leo@58.22.113.104] has joined #lisp 03:23:37 drdo: I mean, for example, saying high order dependent type inference is undecidable causes many to not want to have a system which can do high order dependent type inference. 03:24:25 So, I'm not sure that type inference is actually particularly desirable these days. 03:24:30 -!- hussaibi [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:24:41 drdo: if I had undecidable inference, I'd worry about the decidability of checking in the first place. 03:24:47 Zhivago: Perhaps not for general programming. 03:24:51 -!- hussaibi_ [~hussaibi@wirewall.cs.toronto.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 03:25:13 pkhuong: if everything is annotated, checking is never undecidable 03:25:37 drdo: that is not necessarily true 03:25:49 How do you ensure the object you're labeling is indeed the type you say? 03:26:07 Quadrescence: That's what checking is 03:26:29 drdo: But you're saying annotation implies checkability 03:27:10 I can refute that by defining an IsZero type and labeling an arithmetic expression. 03:27:18 Quadrescence: In the sense that there's an algorithm that will tell yes or no to the question of wether your pogram is well typed or not 03:27:26 *program 03:28:28 Moreover, it can be impossible to decide if a parameterized type is a subtype of another type, which can make checking impossible 03:29:16 i use (symbol-package 'assoc) to locate the package for the function,now i want to get the documentation for the package ,how to do that? 03:30:00 owner: most packages that I've seen don't come with useful documentation. 03:31:16 pkhuong: so if you are new to that pakcage,how to get familiar with it? 03:31:48 owner: you read the documentation. For instance, the common lisp hyperspec covers common lisp very well. 03:31:48 owner: theorically (documentation (find-package "SOME-PACKAGE") 'package) but in practice it doesn't work. 03:32:45 owner: one would have to bug the implementors to have a better use of the CL:DOCUMENTATION function... 03:32:54 -!- dnolen [~davidnole@ool-ad02d909.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: dnolen] 03:32:55 gko [~gko@60-251-71-121.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #lisp 03:33:21 owner: then again, it's mostly libraries (systems) that are documented, not the packages that make them up. 03:33:52 I wish they'd called "packages" something else. 03:34:09 "vocabularies" or something would have avoided so much confusion. 03:34:42 owner: http://paste.lisp.org/display/124077 03:34:56 Speaking of which, I've decided to no-longer use plurals in code. 03:35:22 Spion_ [~spion@unaffiliated/spion] has joined #lisp 03:35:37 pjb: what are the two common lisps on jvm? 03:35:41 I know there is abcl. 03:35:44 abcl and CLforJava. 03:35:58 Granted, the later might not be ready for production yet. 03:36:15 I see. ABCL seems really nice. 03:36:32 I don't know what common lisp libs work with it though. 03:36:37 Zhivago: namespaces? 03:36:47 http://www.clforjava.org/?page=about 03:37:02 leo2007: IIRC, quicklisp works in abcl. 03:37:45 The problem is that things like python abuse that term as well. 03:38:17 -!- summersault [~george@189.13.107.13] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:38:37 -!- dto [~dto@pool-96-252-62-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:38:43 -!- Spion [~spion@unaffiliated/spion] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 03:39:12 Zhivago: Do you think packages do their job well? Should the Lisp package be separate from the concept of a program module? 03:39:56 I think they do a reasonably half-arsed job. 03:39:58 Quadrescence: it is separate. 03:40:33 CL has a number of built-in modules, imho -- the function, value, class, etc modules. 03:40:34 pjb: Yes, I know, but I am asking if that is how it should be. 03:40:44 And I think that's fine. 03:41:03 It is well in the lisp philosiphy, of letting the programmer do whatever he wants to do, assuming he's smart enough not to shoot himself in the foot, and without making it too easy either. 03:41:31 s/philosiphy/philosophy/ 03:41:46 Packages have one fundamental problem to solve, which is that of resolving issues of separate authorship. 03:41:54 And they don't do a good job of that. 03:42:17 They also have the non-fundamental problem of handling semantic namespaces, and they do a reasonable job there. 03:42:57 Well, on the Internet scale, indeed the job they do is not good enough anymore. You would need to use the hierarchical package extension, or use a convention. 03:43:52 Hierarchy isn't a solution to these problems. 03:44:15 The fundamental problem just requires symbols to be split into 'author' and 'identity' components, and packages do this. 03:44:34 -!- gko [~gko@60-251-71-121.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:44:38 Then when you have a collusion of 'author' you can remap one or both when loading those systems. 03:45:11 The rest is just working out how you want to (de)structure or make implicit various parts of the identity component for various contexts. 03:45:35 gko [~gko@60-251-71-121.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #lisp 03:45:48 lolsuper_ [~super_@unaffiliated/lolsuper-/x-9881387] has joined #lisp 03:49:11 honestly (defpackage) is an abomination..why do I have do list all my symbols that I want to export there, basicall doubling my typing.. 03:49:23 -!- upwardindex [~upwardind@modemcable016.209-80-70.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Quit: upwardindex] 03:49:35 maxm: it's documenting the public API. 03:50:06 maxm: the point is that the user of a package can as easily use an internal symbol as an external one. PACKAGE::FOO vs. PACKAGE:BAR. 03:50:23 Just reading package.lisp is often enough documentation 03:50:25 maxm: you could not export anything and write always PACKAGE::FOO. 03:50:45 maxm: but eventually, you will want to document that you want the user of the package to use BAR and not FOO. 03:50:53 maxm: hence (:export "BAR"). 03:51:30 Yes. I think that exporting symbols is a sign of the confusion that CL has between packages and modules. 03:51:34 maxm: and in anycase, you can easily collect symbols defined in a package into a :export list, the emacs command to do so is trivial. 03:51:59 my defpackage export list looks like this: http://paste.lisp.org/+2NQM 03:52:34 err http://paste.lisp.org/display/124078 03:52:43 and how do ever export symbols? 03:52:53 and I just use (def (function e)) that does (export) rigth there 03:53:07 that fixes the problem with (package also exports X) warning in sbcl too 03:53:15 when you remove symbols that are no longer exported 03:53:34 Yes, but then you need to write some documentation somewhere listing the exported symbols anyways. 03:54:07 You could just have multiple vocabularies. 03:54:21 One for the external interface, and others for internal interfaces. 03:55:48 IMHO decision on whenever something is exported, its documentation, and its definition is better to have all in one place.. When its split up into mulitple places, one often forgets to keep them in sync... 03:56:43 so for me, I just go to funtion definition, and right there I can change/edit if its exported or not, its documentation, and of course its definition.., and the (defpackage) just picks it up via reader macro 03:57:42 but to each their own, some ppl prefer to have centralized place, but I always found that annoying to have separate list of exported functions, that I have to manually update. 03:58:36 You could get rid of all of the exporting stuff easily enough. 03:58:39 maxm: the problem is when working with the compiler and system definition systems (asdf et al.). 03:58:54 hmm it works fine with asdf, all my packages are written that way 03:58:55 maxm: on the other hand, you should not export a lot of symbols in general. 03:59:03 Just get rid of the idea of exporting and have multiple packages. 03:59:14 Then mark the packages as being 'public' or 'non-public'. 03:59:19 dnolen [~davidnole@cpe-98-14-92-234.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #lisp 03:59:26 maxm: it cannot work, because the package needs to be defined before the code can be read. 03:59:55 Now everything in the public package is public. 04:00:04 maxm: and if your package.lisp depends on the code (as it must because of the reader macro), then you get a circular dependency, which is a no-no with system definition systems. 04:00:35 pjb: where do you see a probelm? Initially (defpackage) like that creates package with no symbols.. Then as it compiles or loads yoru system, the embedded (export 'whatever) that generated by (def (function e)) or (def (class enc)) get into package external symbol list... WHen package.lisp is reloaded, it picks these symbols up, thus avoiding "XXXx also exports xxx" SBCL warning. 04:00:45 -!- taiyal [~taiyal@bb-216-195-184-102.gwi.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:01:05 maxm: I just explained the problem. Read again what I wrote. 04:01:16 taiyal [~taiyal@bb-216-195-184-102.gwi.net] has joined #lisp 04:01:20 pjb: I don't know any situation where ASDF would just load package.lisp, but not the rest of the system.. 04:01:55 maxm: Separate compilation might be an issue, but it doesn't actually matte. 04:02:12 Since you could just allow foo:bar to be unbound. 04:02:32 It's an issue for CL, but there's no good reason that it needs to be an issue. 04:02:45 pjb: ah my (def ()) wraps exports in eval-whens, so separate compilation (but not loading) works fine too 04:02:46 (on the other hand, that means you won't get notified about spelling errors, so ...) 04:03:30 I think that it boils down to "defining your vocabulary" vs. "spelling errors resolved late" 04:03:52 well I'm using this method in practicality, and I have have probably 6 or 7 utility packages that depend on each other, and I add new / remove exported functions, methods, and classes all the time, it works for me 04:04:43 -!- mrSpec [~Spec@unaffiliated/mrspec] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 04:04:46 I mean (def) stuff auto-exporting really helps especilally with CLOS classes. I would have gone insane manually exporting accessors to classes with 20+ members 04:05:07 (And you could choose between those by making vocabulary declarations optional) 04:06:43 maxm: maybe these accessors shouldn't be public then. 04:06:58 Or maybe you have too many different names. 04:07:10 Generally operators rather than accessors. 04:07:45 -!- Vivitron [~user@pool-71-174-61-33.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 04:09:32 -!- owner [~user@58.62.67.8] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:10:48 -!- penryu [~tanuki@unaffiliated/penryu] has left #lisp 04:12:11 -!- Evanescence [~chris@122.237.23.243] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.4] 04:17:26 -!- xyxu1 [~xyxu@58.41.14.212] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 04:17:29 xyxu [~xyxu@58.41.14.212] has joined #lisp 04:18:48 pkhuong: well its not really about over-exporting, but about centralising te exporting in the (defpackage) form.. It goes against the grain of all recent trends. We define our documentation inline with the function/methods. Even non Lisp languages like C++, and Java started to emulate that with JavaDoc type documentation generators... 04:19:45 Why is defining documentation for exported functions inline with the functions themself is fine, but the "flagging" of function/symbol as exported have to e centralized? makes no sense to me.. 04:20:02 maxm: you don't need to go insane, you just need to know your tools 04:20:18 with slime, you have M-x slime-export-class, and will export everything automagically 04:20:23 maxm: It doesn't have to be 04:20:47 maxm: I agree, but it's less hassle to write a literal (:export ...) given the tools, and the wants of separate compilation. 04:20:48 it will edit the defpackage :export form in your sources 04:20:52 you can just (export 'foo) 04:21:23 and you can add just symbols by using C-c x 04:21:52 you don't need macros for what can be achieved by usage of proper tools 04:22:17 I actually very much like non-javadoc--style centralised documentation. 04:22:23 drdo: thats what I'm actually doing... 04:22:52 what's the problem then? 04:23:40 maxm: part of the reason (dunno if it's really a good reason) for centralizing package definitions is because they are a thing themselves, not just an emergent property of independent decisions. 04:24:00 Once a package has been published you can't willy-nilly export new symbols from it without potentially causing a lot of lossage. 04:24:23 exporting new symbols would be Ok, but not removing them 04:24:27 maxm: for example, you could (declaim (declaration external)) and then write: (in-package "P") (defun f () ...) (declaim (external f)) ; and then you can write a trivial tool to read your sources collect the in-package forms and the declaim external forms, and generate the packages.lisp automatically. 04:24:37 stassats: conflicts 04:24:38 So having the definition of exactly how the package is put together, including what is exported, in one place is arguably a good thing. 04:24:42 stassats: what drdo said. 04:24:54 just don't :use any packages 04:25:06 i 100% knew you were going to say that 04:25:09 stassats: well, if you never :use packages, then it hardly matters what you export. 04:25:13 -!- jleija [~jleija@50.8.10.126] has quit [Quit: good night everyone] 04:25:22 gigamonkey: no, it does matter 04:25:26 Well, I guess unless you're colon key is getting worn out. 04:25:27 ;-) 04:25:30 :USEing packages is nice and healthy 04:26:10 drdo: if you're willing to put up with conflicts, sure 04:26:23 writing alexandria:if-let is not cool 04:26:42 well yea my package.lisp exists mostly for just having a defpackage form, the :use list and the damn shadowing-imports.. Damn iterate/alexandria/anaphora always conflict with each other... 04:26:45 gigamonkey: exported symbols are an indication of commitment to keep them where they are 04:26:47 stassats: that's why what you export is serious bussiness 04:26:55 oh and arnesi 04:27:37 zomgbie [~jesus@h081217131002.dyn.cm.kabsi.at] has joined #lisp 04:28:11 stassats: that's true. But I think never "using" packages is silly. 04:28:30 I think package authors need to be careful about adding new symbols to their packages. 04:28:42 I recommend internal and public packages. :) 04:28:43 not adding new symbols isn't an option, and keeping cross-check among myriads of packages defeats the purpose of the package system 04:28:48 Rather, exporting new symbols. 04:29:21 gigamonkey: well, i didn't say never, one can use things like "clim-lisp", etc. 04:29:32 stassats: so, to drdo's point, do you write alexandria:if-let ? 04:29:41 Or do you rename the alexandria package? 04:29:49 Or just not use that library? 04:29:59 gigamonkey: do i look like i would use such an atrocity as if-let?! 04:30:14 stassats: whatever. alexandria:compose 04:30:20 don't diss if-let, if-let is useful 04:30:28 Or I guess you could specifically import the symbols you want to use. 04:30:40 Maybe that's the right solution. 04:30:45 gigamonkey: i just use alexandria:, if i use it often, i just :import-from it 04:31:03 stassats: yeah, come to think of it, import-from is probably the right way to build up a package. 04:31:29 Sad to say, it's analogous to the python style guide of not doing from foo import * but prefering from foo import bar, baz, quux 04:31:50 -!- spradnyesh [~pradyus@nat/yahoo/x-qfcejkzlhkeapwqh] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:34:08 or most other languages, really. 04:34:27 it's hard to name some things uniquely, you'd either use something sesquipedalian, or prefix it with the package name, which is stupid 04:35:15 -!- dnolen [~davidnole@cpe-98-14-92-234.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: dnolen] 04:36:06 pkhuong: though in more static languages, such as Java, it's somewhat less of an issue since the compiler will note ambiguities early on. 04:36:13 and having a qualified name is actually beneficial, since you can understand at a glance more of the nature of the function you're looking at 04:37:44 stassats: that would be a more convincing argument if Common Lisp had evolved a de facto standard library (above and beyond the standard library that comes with the language) with the package namespace divided up semi-sensibly 04:38:15 gigamonkey: that's exactly the reverse of maxm was finding more flexible about java than CL, the other day ;) [seems that java only complains about conflict when you actually use the identifiers] 04:38:17 Though, of course, one could always create such a set of packages onesself with import-from and export, etc. 04:38:22 while alexandria:remove-from-plist will look the same no matter the package prefix, things like ADD, DELETE, or SAVE would be ambiguous 04:39:00 pkhuong: I think I'm saying the same thing as maxm, actually. You can import foo.* and bar.* and as long as you don't use Quux which exists both as foo.Quux and bar.Quux you're okay. 04:39:10 And if you do, the compiler immediately knows and tells you about it. 04:39:27 gigamonkey: in CL, you get ambiguities detected even before compilation! 04:40:08 pkhuong: except when you use a package and then stomp on on of its exported symbols by accident. 04:40:36 (defpackage :foo (:use :bar)) then (defun a-function-name-exported-by-bar () ...) 04:40:44 gigamonkey: happy sbcl user here ;) 04:40:55 pkhuong: does it fix that? 04:41:12 stassats: why is if-let an atrocity? :< 04:41:15 You get package locks. 04:41:31 pkhuong: automatically? Or they're there if you want to use them? 04:41:32 sykopomp: because it solves a non-existent problem 04:41:52 Xach: if quicklisp works with abcl, does that mean all the libs included will more-or-less work with abcl? 04:42:08 gigamonkey: of course not automatically, it's perfectly sane use case! But you can enable them if you want. 04:42:19 stassats: what problem doesn't it solve? 04:42:24 pkhuong: Ah. Well I never mess around much with implementation specific foo. 04:42:26 leo2007: i wouldn't conclude that 04:42:39 sykopomp: no problem! 04:42:40 sykopomp: uh, hunger. war. 04:43:11 -!- antgreen [~user@bas3-toronto06-2925099807.dsl.bell.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:43:13 It's just that I end up using it (and when-let) a lot, and find it quite handy to communicate what I see as a very common pattern, at least in my code. 04:43:20 stassats: alright. 04:43:25 granted, I use when-let a -lot- more than if-let. 04:43:46 I always liked Erik Naggum's suggestion: WHEREAS 04:44:00 (whereas ((a (something))) (stuff-with a)) 04:44:04 I like scheme's => (: 04:44:36 gigamonkey: that looks like when-let. 04:44:41 I've come full circle, and I think 'it' is actually a good idea. 04:44:51 it may be a common pattern, but if-let doesn't help much, it just pushes a few things around and removes an identifier 04:44:58 (when (foo) (print it)) 04:45:26 I like seeing my lexical variables getting bound. 04:45:32 hardly an improvement for an additional concept to learn 04:45:48 I think PG had that right originally, and I shouldn't have contributed to arguing him out of it. 04:47:01 and then it only works on boolean values, for example, i may want to run the body on only positive values 04:47:32 That's what generalized booleans are for. 04:47:48 Hun^90 [~Hunden@e180105085.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #lisp 04:47:50 sykopomp: yeah. Just a different name. 04:48:03 Hun^04 [~Hunden@e180105085.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #lisp 04:48:07 Zhivago: yes, -1 and 0 false or true? 04:48:25 nil is the only false value. 04:48:44 So there's no problem with (plusp a) returning a if it passes. 04:48:45 so, generalized booleans are not for that 04:48:53 but it doesn't 04:48:59 I said 'no problem' 04:49:10 I didn't say that CL was set up for it currently. 04:49:25 well, i only care about CL 04:49:37 But in that case, you already have a, so ... 04:49:43 I don't know why you'd care. 04:50:00 (defun positivep (x) (when (plusp x) x)) Here's your CL. 04:50:03 -!- Hunden [~Hunden@e180098069.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 04:50:03 -!- Hun^04 is now known as Hunden 04:50:30 sykopomp: it's not CL anymore, it's some sort of a dialect 04:50:51 src/utils.lisp 04:50:53 It's always some sort of a dialect. 04:50:55 :3 04:51:11 -!- Hundenn [~Hunden@e180098069.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:51:50 no, it's not a dialect when you're using different versions of basic operators 04:51:57 spradnyesh [~pradyus@nat/yahoo/x-vbczffyvbjzjfbqy] has joined #lisp 04:53:18 HG` [~HG@p5DC04D3A.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lisp 04:53:40 CL is itself a dialect. Almost half the operators in CL are macros. 04:54:11 really, now? That many? 04:54:46 no 04:54:56 oh, okay! 04:55:01 (let ((c 0)) (do-external-symbols (m "CL") (when (and (fboundp m) (macro-function m)) (incf c))) c) --> 88 04:55:05 -!- HG` [~HG@p5DC04D3A.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Client Quit] 04:55:35 (loop for symbol being the symbols in 'cl count (and (fboundp symbol) (not (macro-function symbol)) (not (special-operator-p symbol)))) => 636 04:55:49 -!- epps [~epps@unaffiliated/epps] has quit [Ping timeout: 263 seconds] 04:56:00 fsvo 'half', I guess. 05:05:25 mcsontos [~mcsontos@nat/redhat/x-mmqwzyseeyknhids] has joined #lisp 05:14:39 benny` [~benny@i577A8FD7.versanet.de] has joined #lisp 05:16:13 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-173-7.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #lisp 05:19:20 -!- benny` is now known as benny 05:19:40 -!- nicdev_ [~nicdev@209-6-50-99.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: nicdev_] 05:20:41 -!- lolsuper_ [~super_@unaffiliated/lolsuper-/x-9881387] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:30:37 -!- phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:35:34 -!- zomgbie [~jesus@h081217131002.dyn.cm.kabsi.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 05:45:21 ehu [~ehuels@ip118-64-212-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has joined #lisp 05:47:31 -!- pnq [~nick@AC8308CC.ipt.aol.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 05:50:36 -!- ehu [~ehuels@ip118-64-212-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 05:51:28 -!- spradnyesh [~pradyus@nat/yahoo/x-vbczffyvbjzjfbqy] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 05:51:35 cyrillos [~cyrill@188.134.33.130] has joined #lisp 05:51:58 plage [~user@81-231-234-224-no56.tbcn.telia.com] has joined #lisp 05:53:00 Good morning everyone! 05:53:36 morning beach 05:53:59 Hey slyrus. What's up? 05:54:34 summer's winding down. travel, work, family, etc... but things are good 05:54:40 and you? 05:55:54 I am visiting my niece in Sweden currently. I'll stay here another week. But I continue working with the people in Sai Gon, because they are still working and they sometimes need my help. 05:56:00 So it's a bit strange. 05:56:12 I get up at 5 or so in the morning and work with them. 05:56:19 -!- cheier [~amedueces@c-76-107-19-58.hsd1.ms.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: sing me a lullaby?] 05:56:22 don't you usually get up then? :) 05:56:36 Yes, but I usually don't interact with people then :) 05:56:55 [other than here I guess] 05:57:21 oh, and I've been learning to play guitar 05:57:28 Great! 05:57:49 I am always amazed by how much time you seem to have. 05:58:29 speaking of which... in your lispy musical (musically lispish?) adventures, do you have any code for reasoning about stringed instruments (naming chords, etc...)? 05:58:45 hmm... I'm not sure if me seeming to have a lot of time is a good thing or a bad thing :) 05:58:53 -!- macrobat [~fuzzyglee@h-17-133.a328.priv.bahnhof.se] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.5] 05:59:24 I have no such code. 05:59:31 But it would be great to have some. 06:00:26 I want something that allows me to say "ok, you've got these strings and you play them fretted at such and such points, what chord is that?" or "I want an ASus4 -- how do I need to fret the strings to play that?", etc... 06:01:10 once you add in the various standard-ish tunings, starting the chords at different notes, etc... you get a huge space of possible chords 06:01:23 slyrus: I said that wrong. I meant: I am incredibly impressed by all the activities you seem to be able to have, and all the things you accomplish, given how time is limited. 06:01:37 I was wondering if you, krystof, didier, etc... might have something along those lines lying around 06:01:40 thanks :) 06:01:53 slyrus: Yes, I see what you are after. That kind of code would be great to have. 06:01:57 I'll ask around in the lab. It's not impossible 06:02:02 I don't have anything myself. 06:02:10 hey Kryztof, ok, thanks 06:02:12 I have a feeling it's an area of active research, though 06:02:26 it would probably be for lutes or other ancient stringed instruments I imagine :) 06:02:33 yes! :) 06:02:35 Hello Kryztof. 06:02:42 jewel [~jewel@196-209-224-179.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #lisp 06:02:43 morning 06:02:55 I haven't heard anything from yoru colleague since we discussed a possible meeting. 06:03:06 yes, sorry. I think a meeting would still be good 06:03:44 I am pretty much available from now until ECLM. 06:04:02 I am even more hugely behind with everything since successfully reproducing again 06:04:20 Oh, congratulations! 06:04:22 plage: I think my colleague is in today too -- I will check and see if we can dream up a date 06:04:23 thank you :-) 06:04:28