00:00:30 I was using it in the sense of the antonym of "rule" (in the appropriate sense). 00:00:38 But with a hit to the literal sense, yes. 00:15:05 Thren [n=Thren@c-75-67-111-180.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 00:15:07 -!- Thren [n=Thren@c-75-67-111-180.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] 00:20:41 -!- Adamant [n=Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [] 00:26:00 A good fountain pen on good paper is a joy to write with. 00:26:20 What is good paper? 00:27:02 Paper that doesn't suck. 00:29:59 -!- cracki [n=cracki@134.130.183.101] has quit [Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)] 00:32:09 -!- saccade_ [n=saccade@dhcp-18-188-74-28.dyn.mit.edu] has quit ["This computer has gone to sleep"] 00:32:32 If it doesn't suck, you can't exactly write on it -- not with ink, anyway. 00:33:02 *jcowan* knows perfectly well that if he wrote anything longer than a grocery list by hand, the said hand would fall off halfway down the first page, anyhow. 00:33:24 Yes, you can, jcowan. 00:34:35 But it is true that most paperoid materials will suck a little bit. Some papers suck much more than others, though. 00:35:04 cracki [n=cracki@sglty.kawo2.RWTH-Aachen.DE] has joined #scheme 00:39:25 -!- anon [n=anon@ip56583baa.direct-adsl.nl] has left #scheme 00:43:22 dansa [i=dbastos@dhcp-077-250-091-080.chello.nl] has joined #scheme 00:44:47 i'm defeated by mzscheme; im trying to have it load file.ss and give me the repl so that i can test my functions, but so far i failed to do so; have tried -f, -N, -u, and so far i didnt get it; my code contains a couple of functions inside a (module ...) 00:45:22 could someone suggest a command line to achieve what i seem to want? 00:45:41 copumpkin [n=pumpkin@c-24-63-67-154.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 00:48:24 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 00:48:48 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 00:52:02 well, finally: %mzscheme -i -u html.ss 00:52:28 -!- masm [n=masm@bl7-194-253.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit ["Leaving."] 00:52:34 -!- dysinger [n=dysinger@32.152.8.241] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 00:52:59 thanks for the ... real time chat? :-) 00:53:34 -!- dansa [i=dbastos@dhcp-077-250-091-080.chello.nl] has left #scheme 00:53:36 karlw [n=user@adsl-99-157-202-134.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 00:54:16 -!- mrsolo [n=mrsolo@nat/yahoo/x-ziafrkoyfwjugyuw] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 00:55:23 Looks like another language standardization flame war rose from the grave. 00:57:49 *karlw* yawns. 01:00:15 rntz [n=rntz@pool-96-235-185-65.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 01:03:00 danking: Looks like your preference file was currupted somehow. Did you try to tweak it somehow? 01:03:41 I have a complex plt-scheme question/problem involving how to create a rather strangely-specified weak mapping. 01:03:47 http://sprunge.us/YHZS <- describes the question. 01:03:51 would anyone care to help me? 01:03:58 Riastradh: parameters are associated with continuation marks (aka "the stack"), but there's an extra level of indirection with the fact that they hold thread cells. 01:04:27 synx: Yes, `parameterize' is tail recursive, since it associates information with the current stack. 01:04:43 eli, a parametrization is a map from parameters to thread cells, right? 01:05:23 Yes, where "map" is from the current stack (roughly) to the cells. 01:05:34 Also, what did you mean by "approximately tail-recursive"? 01:05:55 Ugh, yes I know what you mean; strike that. 01:05:57 (let loop () (parametrize (((make-parameter ...) 5)) (loop))) will use an unbounded amount of memory, won't it? 01:06:18 OK, strike the strike. 01:07:10 eli: Thanks! Also, if it used dynamic-wind instead of continuation marks, I guess it would not be tail recursive? 01:08:16 -!- karlw [n=user@adsl-99-157-202-134.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 01:08:22 Riastradh: I wasn't sure so I tried -- that is bounded, but that unrelated to parameterize being bounded, only to having the mechanisms in place to collect unused marks, thread cells, etc. 01:08:42 OK. 01:08:49 Or more specifically, it is unrelated to the kind of boundedness that synx was referring to. 01:09:10 synx: Yes, dynamic wind kills tails. 01:09:22 s/dynamic wind/`dynamic-wind'/ 01:09:40 If you have a loop between a set of mutually recursive procedures, each of which binds a different parameter and binds a different continuation mark, will such a loop use a bounded amount of space? 01:10:42 I'll remember that eli. Maybe I too could use continuation marks some places where dynamic-wind is overkill. 01:12:15 Riastradh: I'm pretty sure, but way too tired to try it out. If you give me code I'll run it. 01:12:36 OK. Not right now, but if you're curious later, remind me. 01:13:06 synx: You should generally think about continuation marks as a low level device that should be used only when you do very low level stuffs. 01:13:13 Incidentally, since there was obviously some uncertainty about the term, what did you think I meant when I said `approximately tail-recursive', before striking your strike? 01:15:39 OK eli 01:16:02 (I said `approximately' because I didn't trust it to work as generally as the guarantee of proper tail recursion in tail calls -- I suspect that I can construct an example that should, if it were properly tail recursive, use a bounded amount of memory, but that actually uses an unbounded amount of memory.) 01:16:17 Riastradh: Is something like (define (loop1 n) (unless (zero? n) (parameterize ([(make-parameter (cons 1 1)) (cons 2 2)]) (loop2 (sub1 n))))) what you're wondering about (with the mirrored version for `loop2')? 01:17:05 Riastradh: I thought that you were referring to that observable difference that you brought up a short while ago. 01:17:20 No, I mean something like EVEN? and ODD? where EVEN? binds EVEN-PARAMETER to (NOT (EVEN-PARAMETER)) and ODD? binds ODD-PARAMETER to (NOT (ODD-PARAMETER)) or something, except that's not quite enough -- it also needs some intervening continuation marks, I think, to make it actually accumulate space. 01:17:59 But I don't remember how continuation marks work well enough to construct this example I am hypothesizing about at the moment. 01:18:24 The usual even/odd are not tail recursive; making them so would be equivalent to the above wrt tail-recursiveness. 01:19:28 Huh? 01:19:55 (define (even? x) (or (zero? x) (odd? (- x 1)))) (define (odd? x) (and (not (zero? x)) (even? (- x 1)))) 01:20:09 I'm having colorful illusions, apparently. 01:21:02 pink elephants are on parade 01:21:27 Ah, so *that's* what it was? 01:22:56 Riastradh: In any case, by associating information with the stack frame, `parameterize' should always be tail recursive. If you find a way to break it, then that would mean a bug. 01:27:14 Riastradh: https://synx.us.to/code/scheme/parameter-loops.ss 01:28:11 That has parameters parameterizing with each iteration... uses a bounded amount of memory though. 01:28:27 mutually recursive procedures binding different parameters I mean. 01:43:39 I suppose darius's gimmick for dynamic binding with tail recursion might apply here, though I don't claim to understand the full implications. 01:45:33 saccade_ [n=saccade@65.78.24.131] has joined #scheme 01:48:15 His gimmick, I believe, is tantamount to how PLT implements PARAMETRIZE. 02:08:28 Not unlikely. 02:08:43 BTW, sorry about leaving you hanging the other day -- I was dragged away by medical considerations. 02:09:11 Unfortunately, I have no idea which Schemes do or do not gc symbols. Anybody know specific answers? 02:09:51 bytecolor [n=user@32.155.217.56] has joined #scheme 02:10:49 (define foo "foo") #'foo ==> "foo" 02:11:18 what is #' doing? I cant find it in the guile or r5rs manuals 02:12:23 jcowan, Scheme48 does; MIT Scheme and T do not. 02:12:32 Thanks, that's helpful 02:12:44 Those are the only ones for which I know the answer. 02:15:10 *jcowan* types (let loop () (string->symbol (number->string i)) (set! i (+ 1 i)) (loop)) into csi to see what happens 02:15:46 anyone going to the workshop tomorrow? 02:15:52 Presumably scsh does too, then. 02:16:53 It's irritatingly hard to provoke out of memory events by mere linear growth these days, however. 02:16:59 Modern computers have way too much memory. 02:18:11 Can't you set a maximum heap size, jcowan? 02:19:23 Probably. 02:20:25 Scsh does garbage-collect symbols, yes. 02:29:10 -!- Deformati [n=joe@c-76-112-68-135.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 02:29:59 -!- hosh [n=hosh@c-71-199-176-82.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 02:34:00 skmidry_ [n=deekay@59.92.197.232] has joined #scheme 02:34:56 -!- blackened` [n=blackene@ip-89-102-28-224.karneval.cz] has quit [] 02:38:17 TimMc: no, sorry -- no way to grab rudybot's "last" value 02:38:32 -!- rudybot_ is now known as rudybot 02:53:00 tjafk2 [n=timj@e176193053.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 02:58:15 odd question, because I don't actually want to do it any more...is there a way to say "all of the params that were passed to this function, regardless of what bindings they were given" ? 02:58:29 -!- bytecolor [n=user@32.155.217.56] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 02:58:41 You can't specify both individual params and a list of all params 02:58:53 you can specify individual params and a list of all *remaining* params if any 02:59:11 If you want JavaScript, you know where it is. 02:59:26 nope. honestly, I'd be surprised if this exists. 02:59:44 It doesn't. 02:59:48 I started off thinking about how I would write a macro intended to expand inside a function and do processing that involved the args to the func. 03:00:30 (that is, the macro is intended to be used inside a variety of funcs, with arbitrarily-named args) 03:01:17 -!- skmidry [n=deekay@59.92.159.235] has quit [Connection timed out] 03:01:37 specifically, an "accessible-to" macro for the web framework I'm working with that would say "if the current user doesn't meet these criteria, redirect to here and pass the request and session object (if any) along" 03:01:59 then I realized that, in this case, there's a better way. But I was wondering if the general technique is possible. 03:02:41 something like this (as a func, not a macro) is easy in Perl, since the args always come in through @_. 03:04:13 Well, another approach is: 03:04:43 (define (foo . args) (define (foo * a b c) ...) (foo* (car args) (cadr args) (caddr args))) 03:05:00 within the ... body, all of a, b, c, and args are bound. 03:06:32 "foo *" and "foo*" ... is the space simply a typo? 03:06:56 or a mult operator, just for example? 03:07:23 typo 03:07:36 foo* it should be 03:07:36 ok, then I get it. 03:07:41 neat trick. 03:07:56 and fairly easy to macroify. 03:08:11 so you don't have to type the same pattern over and over. 03:08:27 *jcowan* nods. 03:08:57 However, if you are using a syntax-rules macro, you'll have to pass the name of the args argument, because syntax-rules can't introduce names visible in the input. 03:09:07 is foo* private to foo? 03:09:09 -!- synx [i=synx@gateway/gpg-tor/key-0xA71B0C6A] has quit ["crap..."] 03:09:25 -!- tjafk1 [n=timj@e176215046.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:09:30 I haven't been using nested defines, so I'm not clear on their scoping. 03:10:06 -!- skmidry_ [n=deekay@59.92.197.232] has quit [Operation timed out] 03:12:05 They are lexically scoped, like LET, but the bindings are visible on the right-hand sides of the definitions, like LETREC. 03:12:43 I thought let* was visible to the right and letrec was visible left and right? 03:12:45 Well, the scope of a LET binding is its body, whereas the scope of an internal define is the body of the block it's in. 03:16:16 rudybot: (eval (define (x) (letrec ((one (lambda () 1)) (sum_up (lambda () + (one) (two))) (two (lambda () 2))) (sum_up))) 03:16:16 dstorrs: eh? Try "rudybot: help". 03:16:19 ) 03:17:57 rudybot: eval (letrec ((one (lambda () 1)) (sum_up (lambda () + (one) (two))) (two (lambda () 2))) (sum_up)) 03:17:58 dstorrs: ; Value: 2 03:22:58 zeroish` [n=zeroish@c-76-98-192-104.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:23:34 -!- jcowan [n=jcowan@cpe-74-68-154-139.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit ["Leaving"] 03:23:46 karlw [n=user@adsl-99-157-202-134.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 03:24:41 -!- karlw [n=user@adsl-99-157-202-134.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 03:26:54 -!- Mr_Awesome [n=eric@c-98-212-143-245.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:29:26 -!- kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-106-16-199.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit ["Leaving"] 03:29:36 skmidry_ [n=deekay@59.92.197.232] has joined #scheme 03:36:37 -!- saccade_ [n=saccade@65.78.24.131] has quit ["This computer has gone to sleep"] 03:40:34 -!- annodomini [n=lambda@wikipedia/lambda] has quit [] 03:41:09 kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-106-16-199.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 03:43:16 eli: I didn't notice tweaking it, but I eventually realized that also and deleting it fixed the problem. I only had a few settings saved anyway. Thanks for the response. 03:44:17 -!- luz [n=davids@189.122.90.116] has quit ["Client exiting"] 03:45:06 -!- kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-106-16-199.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 03:50:02 danking: Did you look at it before you deleted it? 03:52:00 eli: I still have a copy of it 03:52:04 I did not look at it though 03:54:20 can you tell me what the first 2 lines say? 03:54:56 annodomini [n=lambda@c-75-69-96-104.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:58:20 jengle [n=jengle@64-252-49-153.adsl.snet.net] has joined #scheme 04:00:00 nukem [n=nukem@static-98-140-86-94.dsl.cavtel.net] has joined #scheme 04:00:28 -!- skmidry_ [n=deekay@59.92.197.232] has quit [Success] 04:01:38 how do i import another .scm file 04:01:48 basically how do i do a header file in scheme? 04:14:45 you don't do that 04:14:52 but you probably want either (load) or (require) 04:15:41 Elly: ok ill look into that 04:15:42 thanks 04:17:19 No, you do not want LOAD, ever. 04:17:23 nukem, what Scheme implementation are you using? 04:17:33 mit-scheme 04:17:34 The answer to your question depends on that. 04:17:36 I sometimes want load, Riastradh :P 04:18:28 Riastradh: so u suggest using require? 04:18:30 OK, I lied: in MIT Scheme, you must use LOAD. However, you never use it in one file to indicate that that file requires the definitions of another file. 04:18:59 You will generally write one file to load every other file you want to load, using the LOAD procedure, in the desired order. 04:19:22 well right now i only have 2 files 04:19:53 So create a third called load.scm that just contains 04:19:55 (load "foo") 04:19:56 (load "bar") 04:20:01 where foo.scm and bar.scm are your other files. 04:20:12 ok 04:20:17 thanks 04:20:22 Riastradh: wait, is that really what you do with mit-scheme? 04:20:28 -!- Nshag [i=user@Mix-Orleans-106-1-39.w193-248.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 04:22:26 Yes, I am sorry to say. 04:23:00 :( 04:29:54 -!- zeroish` [n=zeroish@c-76-98-192-104.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Connection timed out] 04:30:52 *Elly* <3 PLT still 04:39:45 -!- jengle [n=jengle@64-252-49-153.adsl.snet.net] has quit ["Leaving"] 04:44:04 mmc [n=mima@cs137104.pp.htv.fi] has joined #scheme 04:49:38 im trying to create a new var tmp inside an if statement 04:49:46 by doing (define tmp '()) 04:49:59 but I keep getting an error ";Can't bind name in null syntactic environment: tmp #[item 11]" 04:50:01 why is that? 04:51:50 -!- annodomini [n=lambda@wikipedia/lambda] has quit [] 04:53:57 you can't use define somewhere other than the top level like that 04:54:08 define is used entirely for making new top-level bindings 04:54:12 maybe you want let? 04:54:23 i also tried (let tmp '()) 04:54:28 but that didnt work either 04:54:30 that is not the syntax for let 04:54:34 check the documentation 04:54:50 in general, it's (let ((n1 v1) (n2 v2) ...) body) 04:54:56 i meant (let (tmp '()) 04:55:04 that is also not correct syntax 04:55:22 its (let ((tmp '()))) 04:55:27 I know 04:55:31 that is what I just said :P 04:55:41 ok i was just making sure 04:56:41 it doesnt like that either 04:57:05 can you pastebin your code somewhere? 04:58:04 http://pastebin.com/m20e8a313 05:02:00 do u see anything wrong? 05:03:17 are you using an editor that can match parentheses? 05:03:22 lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has joined #scheme 05:03:30 because you have written: (let ((tmp '()))) 05:03:31 kinda OT ... anyone figured out a good way to read an online pdf & code at the same time? 05:03:38 (i.e. the book is in pdf format, so you're half reading it, half writing code) 05:03:41 the actual form of let includes a non-empty bod 05:03:43 body, even 05:03:44 Elly: ya im using vim 05:03:47 i'm still trying to figure out the ideal layout to make this work 05:04:00 lowlycoder: open the PDF on half the screen and your editor on the other half 05:04:21 are you sure that works? :-P 05:04:35 it works for me 05:05:00 nukem: so, (let ((n v)) b) binds n to v *inside b* 05:05:05 is b is empty, the binding is useless 05:05:25 for example: (let ((a 1)) (+ a 2)) 05:06:47 I also tried (let (tmp (lookup name (car environment)))) and that doesnt work 05:06:56 lookup should be returning something valid 05:07:02 um 05:07:07 read what I said about the body of let again 05:07:38 ok i see 05:11:23 i still get the same error doing (let (tmp (lookup name (car environment))) (if ...)) 05:11:47 im only using tmp in the let body 05:12:26 you do not have enough sets of parentheses in the example you gave there 05:12:56 in the code i know i do 05:13:11 pastebin it again 05:13:36 http://pastebin.com/d22158a44 05:14:05 no, you do not have enough parens 05:14:20 remember, it's (let ((n1 v1) (n2 v2) ...) body) 05:14:47 Elly: "define is used entirely for making new top-level bindings"? 05:15:03 eli: that's...I don't see how I can explain that 05:15:10 it's just true, isn't it? 05:15:19 What about internal definitions? 05:15:33 internal to modules and classes, you mean? 05:15:45 No, internal to a function. 05:15:54 you...can't do that, can you? 05:16:04 rudybot: eval (define (foo x) (define bar (+ x 1)) bar) 05:16:05 eli: your lazy sandbox is ready 05:16:09 rudybot: init scheme 05:16:09 eli: your scheme sandbox is ready 05:16:10 rudybot: eval (define (foo x) (define bar (+ x 1)) bar) 05:16:13 rudybot: eval (foo 5) 05:16:14 eli: ; Value: 6 05:16:47 I thought that was not legal 05:17:02 They're equivalent to `letrec'. (Usually. Sometime to `letrec*'.) 05:17:20 SICP is very fond of them, IIRC. 05:17:51 Elly: that fixed it thanks for all the help 05:17:55 reprore [n=reprore@114.48.25.189] has joined #scheme 05:18:41 eli: hm 05:19:07 eli: I just checked out r5rs, and it says "[Definitions] are valid only at the top level of a and at the beginning of a ." 05:19:18 so... there it is :P 05:20:15 Elly: Look for a section called "Internal definitions". 05:20:37 'beginning of a ' covers the case you mentioned 05:21:07 Yes. 05:21:12 -!- jao [n=jao@31.Red-83-33-230.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Connection timed out] 05:21:27 "beginning of a " != "top-level bindings". 05:21:33 I know 05:21:43 that is why I said "so... there it is :P" 05:21:49 Ah. 05:22:09 every time I look at r5rs I am astounded by how elegant it is 05:22:37 It has its moments; both kinds. 05:23:45 clojure is awesome 05:23:50 is clojure considered scheme? 05:23:54 No. 05:23:55 no 05:23:59 or will i get kick banned for saying things like "clojure is scheme done right" 05:24:08 why is clojure ot considered scheme? 05:24:09 you would have to justify a claim like that 05:24:12 (besides lacking continuations) 05:24:12 Clojure is not Scheme, and it is not done right. 05:24:14 because it's... not scheme? 05:24:23 there is a definition of scheme, called R5RS 05:24:27 clojure does not meet it 05:24:43 r5rs is one definition of scheme 05:24:48 r5rs is *the* definition 05:24:56 what about r4rs and r6rs? 05:25:15 respectively older and newer versions of the definition of scheme 05:25:25 r6rs is more relevant, but all of that is unrelated to clojure which does not satisfy any version. 05:25:31 if you want to consider r6rs to be the definition, go ahead 05:29:14 Scheme has several key features: lexical scope, hygiene, uniform syntax, tail calls, first class continuations. 05:29:26 clojure lacks tail calls & first class continuations 05:29:32 in fact, any time of continuations 05:29:33 then it is not scheme 05:29:35 saccade_ [n=saccade@65.78.24.131] has joined #scheme 05:29:36 Some random googling makes me believe that clojure fails each and every one of these. 05:29:40 mystery solved :P 05:29:45 eli: lexical scope? really? 05:29:59 It has CL-style dynamically scoped variables, it seems. 05:30:03 clojure satisfies lexical scope; it uses define-macro, so i guess failing hygeiene 05:30:05 really? D: 05:30:18 it supports dynamicallys scoped, but default is lexical 05:30:19 wait 05:30:25 i actually use clojure :-D 05:30:25 ew :( 05:30:33 define-macro is awesome; i never got syntax-case 05:30:41 what does itmean to have support for dynamic scope? 05:30:54 it breaks the whole notion of 'macro is just scheme code' 05:30:57 you say "This probably comes from a previous frame"? 05:30:59 er, what? 05:31:01 no it doesn't 05:31:10 where did I say that? 05:31:12 syntax-case is a pattern match applied to a syntax object 05:31:17 -!- araujo [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit ["Leaving"] 05:31:22 no, I am asking what it looks like to have support for dynamic scope 05:31:33 From http://clojure.org/vars -- Vars provide a mechanism to refer to a mutable storage location that can be dynamically rebound (to a new storage location) on a per-thread basis. 05:31:53 Most Schemes support dynamic scope, Elly. The R5RS includes two dynamically scoped resources -- the current input and output port -- although no general way to create new ones. 05:32:10 that... just sounds like thread-local mutable variables, eli 05:32:19 Riastradh: huh? aren't those just globals? oO 05:32:20 lowlycoder: `syntax-case' is *exactly* "macro is just scheme code". 05:32:48 Elly: Yes, it sounds just like CL -- global variables are dynamically scoped by default, function arguments are lexically scoped. 05:33:01 IOW: a mess. 05:33:40 that's...weird 05:33:41 eli: none of the stuff I've read on syntax-case says that 05:33:59 -!- copumpkin [n=pumpkin@c-24-63-67-154.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has quit [] 05:34:09 -!- arthurmaciel [n=user@201.80.20.127] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 05:34:14 lowlycoder: syntax-case is something like (match (syntax->datum foo) ...) 05:34:18 Elly, they are not merely mutable global resources because there is no operation simply to mutate them. 05:34:18 I'm actually surprised to find out just how many of these fundamental features clojure breaks. It seems that I gave it an undeserved benefit-of-doubt. 05:34:22 copumpkin [n=pumpkin@c-24-63-67-154.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:34:40 Riastradh: really? that' 05:34:45 that is surprising 05:34:46 lowlycoder: What Elly said -- syntax case is just doing pattern matching, and otherwise it *is* Scheme code. 05:35:08 *eli* looks up clojure namespaces 05:35:40 The only operations on the current input and output ports are to find what they are and to dynamically bind them (to be newly created ports into or out of named files). 05:35:51 Riastradh: that's...messed up 05:35:54 *eli* looks up clojure modules 05:35:59 What is messed up, Elly? 05:36:08 why did they do that instead of *current-input-port* and *current-output-port* as globals? 05:36:59 Yeah, clojure does the CL thing in this area too it seems -- namespaces, and "identifiers" are actually just symbols. 05:37:18 why am i getting "The object #!unspecific is not applicable." now? 05:37:21 http://pastebin.com/m73f0f6ae 05:37:30 So clojure primitively fails another huge Scheme feature from r6rs (that has existed in other implementations before that). 05:37:31 Requiring that the representation of these resources be globals has several pragmatic consequences, Elly. 05:37:36 Riastradh: like what? 05:38:00 Suppose a Scheme system wants the current input and output ports to be stored thread-locally. 05:38:30 In order for this to happen, global variables must be stored thread-locally, or there must be something special about *CURRENT-INPUT-PORT* and *CURRENT-OUTPUT-PORT* that is not shared by other global variables. 05:38:40 saccade__ [n=saccade@VPN-EIGHTY-TWO.MIT.EDU] has joined #scheme 05:38:42 hm 05:38:44 that's true 05:38:50 so you declare them to be thread-local? 05:38:55 Conversely, if global variables are stored thread-globally, then the current input and output port cannot be thread-local. 05:39:06 Elly: Do you know _why_ the convention is to use stars for globals in CL? 05:39:24 If you want some notion of variables that are `declared' to be stored thread-globally, you need to have some notion of declarations about variables. 05:39:26 eli: no 05:39:40 -!- reprore [n=reprore@114.48.25.189] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 05:40:30 Elly: Because these things are dangerous. If you happen to do something like (defvar x 'whatever) in CL, you pretty much guarantee lots of foot shootage. 05:40:49 (Of the worst kind.) 05:40:53 fair enough 05:41:13 but having two built-in dynamically-scoped variables and no way to make them in general seems inelegant 05:41:14 eli, to be fair, that's not because of declarations about *bindings*, but rather because of declarations about *symbols* that cause LET and LAMBDA not to shadow as they should. 05:41:18 i dont get why im getting this error argh 05:41:41 Riastradh: Yes, of course. 05:41:47 nukem: the code that you have does not look too bad? 05:41:55 nukem: you can get rid of the let, since it's not doing anything 05:42:11 Elly: are you looking at http://pastebin.com/m73f0f6ae 05:42:19 I think so, yes 05:42:36 Combined with the implicit special declaration of random `setq' on new symbols, and you get a recipe for disaster of the kind that leaves scars that make sure you never ever forget the damn stars. 05:42:36 the let is setting tmp to whatever lookup returns 05:42:50 I mean the outer let 05:43:06 eli, SETQ on unbound symbols has undefined effects, by the way. 05:43:09 ok 05:43:16 you should also note 05:43:18 currently its dying in the second let 05:43:25 (Some implementations do imply a special declaration, though.) 05:43:25 that (if (null? env) ()) 05:43:30 is not a good idea 05:43:46 Riastradh: I forgot to add -- should have been "the implicit special declaration ... that many implementations are fond of". 05:43:47 Elly: o why is that? I am it to return null if it is 05:43:53 OK. 05:43:54 () is not null in scheme 05:43:56 perhaps you mean '() 05:44:09 Elly: ahh yes 05:44:09 (or, in fact, null) 05:44:31 () causes an interesting error message 05:45:16 xwl [n=user@222.35.122.240] has joined #scheme 05:45:17 Elly: ok things are starting to work again 05:45:19 thanks 05:45:27 I wish scheme gave better errors 05:45:29 () is the external representation of the empty list in Scheme. (QUOTE ()) is the external representation of an expression whose value is the empty list. In some Scheme implementations, of which MIT Scheme is one, the empty list is self-evaluating. 05:45:42 the errors describe exactly what went wrong 05:46:53 -!- saccade_ [n=saccade@65.78.24.131] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)] 05:46:53 Actually, I'm lying by using the term `the external representation', because '() is another external representation for the same object as (QUOTE ()), under some definition of `the same'. 05:48:18 nukem, if you attempt to evaluate (#!UNSPECIFIC), you will get the error you quoted, because #!UNSPECIFIC is not a procedure and hence not applicable. If (FOO) returns #!UNSPECIFIC, and you attempt to evaluate ((FOO)), that will reduce to (#!UNSPECIFIC), and you will get the error you quoted. If (LET (...) (FOO ...)) returns #!UNSPECIFIC, and you evaluate ((LET (...) (FOO ...))), you will still get the same error. 05:48:18 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 05:48:39 (You may observe a pattern in my last three examples.) 05:48:44 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 05:48:56 Riastradh: I guess I'm not used to the error messages then 05:49:55 #!UNSPECIFIC is an object that is basically useless, returned from procedures whose specifications do not specify what they return. #!UNSPECIFIC ensures that code does not accidentally rely on an accidental but non-portable value returned from these procedures. 05:52:01 Other constructions than procedures can return #!UNSPECIFIC, too. For example, one-armed IF expressions yield #!UNSPECIFIC if their conditions yield false, such as (IF #F 'FOO). This is because you didn't say what the expression should yield in that case, so Scheme is helpfully supplying a value that will cause trouble as soon as you try to do something with it other than to ignore it, which is ideally shortly after the IF expr 05:52:26 (`One-armed' here indicates that there is only one branch in the IF, whose general syntax is (IF []).) 05:52:48 but isnt one-armed valid? 05:53:00 It is valid, but you should not do anything interesting with the value that it returns. 05:53:34 If you cared about the value that it should return, you should have identified what value you wanted it to yield if the condition were false. 05:53:52 I.e., you should have used a two-armed IF. 05:54:27 what would be nice about the error is if it again where it is happening 05:54:47 I'm sorry, but I can't parse that sentence. 05:55:01 i meant about the unspecific error 05:55:53 You can find more information about what Scheme was doing when it signalled the error, by entering the debugger, either in Edwin or by evaluating (debug) at the error prompt in the REPL. 05:56:44 Riastradh: how does one do that in plt scheme? 05:56:54 I don't know. 05:58:21 jonrafkind [n=jon@pool-70-22-235-25.bos.east.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 05:58:22 reprore [n=reprore@EM114-48-25-189.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 06:01:44 Elly: You use DrScheme, and it highlights the expression in red, gives arrows that identify the stack at the point it failed, and if you really want, pop up a stacktrace window too. 06:02:04 I don't use drscheme though :P 06:02:24 Then you need to read about using errortrace. 06:09:19 -!- incubot [i=incubot@klutometis.wikitex.org] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 06:12:21 incubot [i=incubot@klutometis.wikitex.org] has joined #scheme 06:23:17 -!- jonrafkind [n=jon@pool-70-22-235-25.bos.east.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 06:25:45 youloosegudaysir [i=ind@190.205.197.116] has joined #scheme 06:25:55 Is it possible to write a kernel with Scheme? 06:30:14 with an appropriate scheme interpreter, yes 06:33:00 Elly in which type of programs you would choose Scheme over C or python?, what would someone gain by using Scheme? 06:33:31 I would choose Scheme over C whenever I could get away with it just because it makes development so much faster 06:33:55 I would choose it over Python because I think it's prettier and more elegant :P 06:35:42 Elly oh I see. I'm checking some stanford programming classes videos, and the teacher talked about teaching Scheme. I was curious as to what Scheme may offer to force the guy to teach it :) 06:35:55 I don't know about "force" 06:36:07 it is a good teaching language, I think 06:48:18 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 06:48:44 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 06:51:20 -!- mmc [n=mima@cs137104.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 06:53:37 jonrafkind [n=jon@pool-70-22-235-25.bos.east.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 07:03:51 -!- lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has quit ["leaving"] 07:06:37 dysinger [n=dysinger@71-20-35-99.war.clearwire-wmx.net] has joined #scheme 07:09:23 synx [i=synx@gateway/gpg-tor/key-0xA71B0C6A] has joined #scheme 07:09:53 `Peter [n=pk@188-23-7-1.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has joined #scheme 07:10:22 -!- `Peter [n=pk@188-23-7-1.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has quit [Client Quit] 07:10:37 `Peter [n=pk@188.23.7.1] has joined #scheme 07:24:15 -!- eli [n=eli@winooski.ccs.neu.edu] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 07:24:21 abbe [n=abbe@box.of.abbe.who.is.a.member.of.pirateparty.in] has joined #scheme 07:28:00 -!- jimi_hendrix [n=quassel@unaffiliated/jimihendrix] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 07:42:19 -!- xwl [n=user@222.35.122.240] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 07:42:34 xwl [n=user@222.35.122.240] has joined #scheme 07:43:33 jewel [n=jewel@dsl-242-163-86.telkomadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 07:46:05 Modius_ [n=Modius@24.174.112.56] has joined #scheme 07:46:31 npe [n=npe@94-224-251-223.access.telenet.be] has joined #scheme 07:47:46 -!- `Peter [n=pk@188.23.7.1] has quit [] 07:48:19 -!- Modius_ [n=Modius@24.174.112.56] has quit [Client Quit] 07:48:38 Modius [n=Modius@24.174.112.56] has joined #scheme 07:51:42 -!- ToreN [n=tore@181.133.34.95.customer.cdi.no] has quit ["leaving"] 08:03:01 Edico [n=Edico@unaffiliated/edico] has joined #scheme 08:11:42 Narrenschiff [n=ritchie@xolotl.plus.com] has joined #scheme 08:11:43 -!- dysinger [n=dysinger@71-20-35-99.war.clearwire-wmx.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 08:22:29 -!- abbe [n=abbe@box.of.abbe.who.is.a.member.of.pirateparty.in] has quit [] 08:25:52 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 08:26:16 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 08:26:21 -!- nukem [n=nukem@static-98-140-86-94.dsl.cavtel.net] has quit ["Leaving"] 08:35:00 -!- ASau [n=user@83.69.240.52] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 08:35:10 ASau [n=user@83.69.240.52] has joined #scheme 08:50:44 -!- reprore [n=reprore@EM114-48-25-189.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 08:53:52 reprore [n=reprore@EM114-48-211-247.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 08:53:55 -!- reprore [n=reprore@EM114-48-211-247.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 08:57:08 eli [n=eli@winooski.ccs.neu.edu] has joined #scheme 08:59:37 HG` [n=HG@xdsley229.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 09:09:12 -!- jewel [n=jewel@dsl-242-163-86.telkomadsl.co.za] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 09:14:47 ASau` [n=user@83.69.240.52] has joined #scheme 09:15:10 -!- ASau [n=user@83.69.240.52] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 09:29:47 hkBst [n=hkBst@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 09:34:58 -!- hkBst [n=hkBst@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 09:44:35 -!- ASau` is now known as ASau 09:45:26 -!- HG` [n=HG@xdsley229.osnanet.de] has quit [Client Quit] 10:05:50 owen1 [n=oren@cpe-72-129-83-194.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 10:11:33 -!- xwl [n=user@222.35.122.240] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 10:13:26 -!- owen1 [n=oren@cpe-72-129-83-194.socal.res.rr.com] has quit ["Lost terminal"] 10:15:19 HG` [n=HG@xdslek049.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 10:15:25 jorick [n=noname@200.57-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #scheme 10:15:46 does anyone know if there is a platform similar to robocode for scheme? 10:25:17 -!- HG` [n=HG@xdslek049.osnanet.de] has quit [Client Quit] 10:25:20 Doesn't robocode run on Java? You could use Kawa or SISC then 10:31:53 -!- ASau [n=user@83.69.240.52] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 10:34:21 yeah but if its all scheme it's easier for me to hack on 10:42:01 HG` [n=HG@xdsley221.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 10:46:54 -!- HG` [n=HG@xdsley221.osnanet.de] has quit [Client Quit] 10:49:45 ASau [n=user@83.69.240.52] has joined #scheme 10:50:04 -!- Narrenschiff [n=ritchie@xolotl.plus.com] has quit [] 10:56:20 masm [n=masm@bl10-211-142.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #scheme 10:58:34 dzhus [n=sphinx@93-80-212-202.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 11:21:44 incubot: how do you feel about robocop? 11:21:48 "On a scale from Robocop to your sister's church play, it's a cosplay show with a big budget and lots of squishy noises." 11:31:53 -!- sladegen [n=nemo@unaffiliated/sladegen] has quit [Nick collision from services.] 11:32:02 sladegen [n=nemo@unaffiliated/sladegen] has joined #scheme 11:37:26 `Peter [n=pk@188-23-1-155.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has joined #scheme 11:37:32 qnn- [i=ind@190.205.197.116] has joined #scheme 11:55:24 -!- dzhus [n=sphinx@93-80-212-202.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 11:58:31 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 11:58:53 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 12:01:15 -!- jorick [n=noname@200.57-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 12:05:45 -!- youloosegudaysir [i=ind@190.205.197.116] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 12:16:22 zeroish` [n=zeroish@c-76-98-192-104.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 12:17:59 sepult [n=user@xdsl-87-78-103-249.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 12:19:51 -!- npe [n=npe@94-224-251-223.access.telenet.be] has quit [] 12:20:26 npe [n=npe@94.224.251.223] has joined #scheme 12:26:22 -!- jonrafkind [n=jon@pool-70-22-235-25.bos.east.verizon.net] has quit [Connection timed out] 12:30:43 blackened` [n=blackene@ip-89-102-28-224.karneval.cz] has joined #scheme 12:33:36 jonrafkind [n=jon@129.10.201.78] has joined #scheme 12:44:03 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 12:44:28 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 12:47:46 Narrenschiff [n=ritchie@xolotl.plus.com] has joined #scheme 12:48:14 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)] 12:48:39 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 12:54:41 reprore_ [n=reprore@ntkngw598092.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 13:16:10 luz [n=davids@189.122.90.116] has joined #scheme 13:16:41 annodomini [n=lambda@c-75-69-96-104.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 13:19:35 -!- masm [n=masm@bl10-211-142.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit ["Leaving."] 13:22:15 edwardk_ [i=4bdf6484@gateway/web/freenode/x-hppuqjbdxlqqvbya] has joined #scheme 13:22:43 -!- edwardk_ is now known as edwardk 13:41:49 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 13:42:12 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 13:43:12 HG` [n=HG@xdsler185.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 13:46:07 -!- patmaddo_ [n=patmaddo@ip68-5-45-222.oc.oc.cox.net] has quit ["Leaving..."] 13:55:49 -!- saccade [n=saccade_@COMBINATOR.MIT.EDU] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 13:58:01 jewel [n=jewel@dsl-242-163-86.telkomadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 14:01:20 -!- sepult [n=user@xdsl-87-78-103-249.netcologne.de] has quit [Connection timed out] 14:04:30 -!- zeroish` [n=zeroish@c-76-98-192-104.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 14:18:04 -!- annodomini [n=lambda@wikipedia/lambda] has quit [] 14:29:41 -!- hiyuh [n=hiyuh@KD124214245222.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 14:33:06 hiyuh [n=hiyuh@KD124214245222.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 14:40:18 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 14:40:42 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 14:40:52 annodomini [n=lambda@c-75-69-96-104.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 14:41:07 -!- qnn- [i=ind@190.205.197.116] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 14:47:57 -!- annodomini [n=lambda@wikipedia/lambda] has quit [] 14:48:12 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 14:48:37 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 14:58:22 Nshag [i=user@193.248.206.147] has joined #scheme 14:58:39 saccade_ [n=saccade@65-78-24-131.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 15:00:33 -!- saccade__ [n=saccade@VPN-EIGHTY-TWO.MIT.EDU] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 15:06:48 antoszka [n=antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has joined #scheme 15:08:24 MrFahrenheit [i=RageOfTh@92.36.156.226] has joined #scheme 15:16:35 ak70 [n=ak70@195.158.93.153] has joined #scheme 15:27:59 Pepe_ [n=ppjet@78.116.11.105] has joined #scheme 15:42:09 Adamant [n=Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has joined #scheme 15:45:06 -!- Adamant [n=Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 15:45:18 abbe [n=abbe@box.of.abbe.who.is.a.member.of.pirateparty.in] has joined #scheme 15:45:28 Adamant [n=Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has joined #scheme 15:49:02 araujo [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 15:50:26 -!- antoszka [n=antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has quit ["+++ killed by SIGSEGV +++"] 16:03:44 -!- HG` [n=HG@xdsler185.osnanet.de] has quit [Client Quit] 16:05:41 -!- jonrafkind [n=jon@129.10.201.78] has quit [Connection timed out] 16:06:42 annodomini [n=lambda@c-75-69-96-104.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 16:21:48 -!- cracki [n=cracki@sglty.kawo2.RWTH-Aachen.DE] has quit ["If technology is distinguishable from magic, it is insufficiently advanced."] 16:25:58 mejja [n=user@c-49b6e555.023-82-73746f38.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has joined #scheme 16:26:01 francogrex [n=franco@91.177.20.87] has joined #scheme 16:26:06 sepult [n=user@xdsl-87-78-30-49.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 16:26:41 Hi; I'm a common lisp user. But i've been intriduced to a palm OS application called LispMe which is scheme based 16:27:08 it's very simple (doesn't support map or macros) 16:27:32 simple? More like feeble! 16:27:41 If it doesn't have map it's very incomplete 16:28:12 sjamaan: yes it was very incomplete. but I'm now interested to develop my scheme: what is the best to work with implementation? 16:28:25 That's a loaded question in here :) 16:28:33 I woild like to be able to make standalone fast executables on windows XP 16:28:51 francogrex: I think LispMe was developed -- and later abandoned -- by a guy who's a regular here 16:28:53 by best I mean being able to mean 16:29:22 being able to develop small standalone exe 16:29:26 rudybot: seen Daemmerung 16:29:27 *offby1: Daemmerung was seen in/on #scheme four weeks, three days ago, saying "Rolled back to svn 1.6.2, no joy. Oh, well. I don't need to be fussing with this today anyway.", and then Daemmerung was seen quitting in/on 1133sae.mazama.net four weeks, three days ago, saying ""Smoove out."" 16:29:35 to distributed, something along the C excetubales 16:29:59 francogrex: PLT scheme should do that 16:30:19 It's probably the one with the best support for Windows currently 16:30:31 offby1: it's a shame it was abandoned; it had potential, but they way it is now is very poor; it actually annpoyed me at times because i was reading siome literature about scheme and not being able to applyt them in LispME 16:30:40 Felix has been working hard on Windows support for Chicken, so you can try luck with that too 16:31:05 sjamaan: plt scheme ok; is he exe small and fast as well? 16:31:21 I don't know, I don't use Windows 16:31:40 Nor PLT 16:33:26 ah ok; iwas reading alsoi about "guile" being fast but not dsure makes exe 16:34:03 I don't think it makes stand-alone executables, but you could make one with a little C wrapper 16:34:22 francogrex: guile is notoriously slow, and doesn't make standalone exes, and probably doesn't work at all on Windows. 16:34:45 offby1: I think it will work on Windows; I've seen Gimp on Windows and that includes guile, right? 16:34:47 (unless you use Cygwin, but ... that way lies madness) 16:34:57 sjamaan: gimp most certainly does NOT include guile 16:35:08 offby1: It does nowadays 16:35:08 it includes some lame-o thing that claims to be scheme but isn't 16:35:11 it does? 16:35:14 :) 16:35:23 news to me 16:35:28 I don't know if the Gimp I saw back then already included guile though 16:35:50 ldd $(type -p gimp) | egrep guile => zip, nada, bupkis 16:36:21 cracki [n=cracki@sglty.kawo2.RWTH-Aachen.DE] has joined #scheme 16:36:28 "GIMP operations can be automated with scripting languages. The Script-Fu is a Scheme based extension language implemented using TinyScheme, GIMP can also be scripted in Perl, Python (Python-fu), or Tcl." 16:36:41 GIMP uses (ugh) tinyscheme... 16:36:50 -!- reprore_ [n=reprore@ntkngw598092.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 16:37:25 reprore_ [n=reprore@ntkngw598092.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 16:37:50 ah, tinyscheme 16:37:59 sorry bout the FUD 16:38:34 *offby1* scowls 16:38:35 repror___ [n=reprore@116.82.73.92] has joined #scheme 16:38:36 anyway. 16:41:45 -!- reprore_ [n=reprore@ntkngw598092.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 16:48:40 gambit works well on windows 16:52:56 mbishop_ [n=martin@unaffiliated/mbishop] has joined #scheme 17:00:54 offby1` [n=user@q-static-138-125.avvanta.com] has joined #scheme 17:02:26 rudybot_ [n=luser@q-static-138-125.avvanta.com] has joined #scheme 17:06:00 -!- offby1 [n=user@pdpc/supporter/monthlybyte/offby1] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 17:06:27 snurble: ok maybe it was gambit-C then that was being talked about that it's fast and makes exe? 17:07:10 HG` [n=HG@xdslfa165.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 17:08:12 francogrex: why don't you just download a scheme or two and try them for yourself? 17:08:48