00:05:15 mbohun [~mbohun@202.124.74.202] has joined #scheme 00:14:30 _Pb [~pb@75.131.194.186] has joined #scheme 00:14:43 -!- Komi [Komi@62.32.131.75] has quit [] 00:17:20 -!- MononcQc [~Ferd@modemcable062.225-20-96.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:25:37 mastertogo [~togo@ip70-171-249-111.tc.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 00:26:31 -!- rdd [~rdd@c83-250-52-182.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:27:05 rdd [~rdd@c83-250-52-182.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 00:27:14 saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-FIVE-THIRTY-SEVEN.MIT.EDU] has joined #scheme 00:35:55 so what's the deal with the scheme mailing list spam 00:37:49 -!- _Pb [~pb@75.131.194.186] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:37:52 Which list? 00:39:18 -!- rdd [~rdd@c83-250-52-182.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:54:23 mmc [~michal@109.117.129.204] has joined #scheme 00:56:06 -!- mmc1 [~michal@109.112.37.42] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 00:57:26 chandler, comp.lang.scheme 00:57:49 That's no mailing list... 00:58:42 -!- bokr [~eduska@95-30-105-144.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:59:38 -!- tommylommykins [~tommylomm@5ad471cc.bb.sky.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:01:24 -!- asarch [~asarch@189.188.160.229] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 01:06:20 "newsgroup" 01:08:08 fowlduck [~fowlduck@24-177-112-133.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com] has joined #scheme 01:09:46 -!- xwl_ [~user@esprx01x.nokia.com] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 01:10:07 xwl_ [~user@esprx01x.nokia.com] has joined #scheme 01:10:24 -!- mejja [~user@c-14bee555.023-82-73746f38.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:11:33 -!- mister_m [~matthew@OSH-NET-202-225.onshore.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 01:14:03 bokr [~eduska@95-30-105-133.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 01:17:16 snarkyboojum [~snarkyboo@110-174-43-105.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #scheme 01:19:25 meder___ [~meder@c-69-143-116-194.hsd1.md.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 01:20:42 TonySidaway [~tonysidaw@cpc1-walt3-0-0-cust709.popl.cable.ntl.com] has joined #scheme 01:21:29 .oO( comp.lang.scheme is a planet-destroying space station? ) 01:23:14 Relax, foof. It's only *analogous* to a planet-destroying space station. 01:26:20 hmmm... perl6 looks like it could actually destroy planets: http://perlgeek.de/blog-en/perl-5-to-6/27-common-idioms.html 01:26:33 or at least render their entire populations insane 01:26:45 mind you, those are the _common_ idioms 01:27:11 my %exists = @keys Z=> 1 xx *; 01:27:42 I used perl 4 once because it helped me to do stuff that would have been painful in C. Nobody told me it would become some weird deathcult. 01:28:50 In the mid-1990s it was just something you used because the regular expressions worked well and it didn't have weird limitations on the number of arguments as many *nix greps and awks had at the time. 01:29:21 toast` [~toast`@c-71-231-102-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 01:30:00 Perl5 is still a damn good awk/sed replacement. One of the biggest features being the consistency - every version of awk and sed is subtly different. 01:32:30 foof: I must be nuts today, because the example you quoted actually makes sense to me, in a "this is exactly why I don't like irregular syntax, but I can put up with it anyway" sort of way. 01:32:39 jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 01:33:59 chandler: I'm sure it's fine once you get used to it. The question is, can you keep all of the Perl6 syntax in your head at once? 01:34:26 I guess it depends on how big your head is. 01:34:29 Well... OK, still easier by far than a natural language, so if you use it every day I'm sure you can. 01:34:29 And how old you are. 01:34:47 I can't keep all of the Perl 5 syntax in my head at once, but then I don't really use it often. 01:35:49 It definitely seems like a Big Fine Language, but there are plenty of folks who will master such a language and use it for everything. 01:36:56 MonononcQc [~Ferd@modemcable062.225-20-96.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 01:37:30 -!- toast` [~toast`@c-71-231-102-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: toast`] 01:38:59 The idea of a synthetic infix operator like Z=> is actually somewhat natural once one accepts infix operators in the first place. Some languages already have a limited number of such synthetic operators, such as `+=' and the like in C. 01:41:29 ah, the * there means infinity 01:41:50 why not something like [1..] instead of 1 xx * ? 01:42:00 and can it be 1xx* ? 01:42:38 oh wait, it's not [1..], it's just repeated 1's 01:43:03 -!- rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-92-135-66.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:43:10 -!- zard1989 [~user@Joe.m4.ntu.edu.tw] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 01:44:14 I don't think I like max/min as infix operators. 01:45:58 The sorting example on that page is the ugliest thing there. Changing behavior based on the arity of an input procedure is a bad idea, unless they've abandoned functions with variable arity. 01:46:39 Agreed. 01:50:24 -!- mmc [~michal@109.117.129.204] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:54:18 -!- TonySidaway [~tonysidaw@cpc1-walt3-0-0-cust709.popl.cable.ntl.com] has left #scheme 01:55:39 The other problem being that you often want to specify *both* a transform and a comparator. 01:56:36 Well, Perl6 is not really to be compared with Perl5. 01:57:46 -!- curi [~curi@adsl-99-114-139-86.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 01:57:56 -!- Toekutr [~toekutr@adsl-69-107-120-72.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net] has quit [Quit: REALITY IS TEARING ITSELF ASUNDER, BUT I MUST RACE] 01:58:19 Thor [~Vens@unaffiliated/thor] has joined #scheme 02:01:35 -!- Thor [~Vens@unaffiliated/thor] has quit [Client Quit] 02:08:01 neilv [~user@dsl092-071-029.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net] has joined #scheme 02:09:08 -!- fowlduck [~fowlduck@24-177-112-133.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:10:08 how do people feel about the WGs? 02:11:45 Contemptuous, I think, but not intensely so. 02:11:54 heh 02:12:43 Marc Feeley asked me to make a report on WG2 activities for Montreal, and I have done so as follows: 02:13:13 "En raison de la malversation et l'indolence de la présidence, le WG2 n'a fait aucun progrès, full stop." 02:13:50 -!- proq [~user@unaffiliated/proqesi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:15:46 i feel inspired to revolution. does montreal have a prison that may be stormed? 02:18:02 -!- meder___ [~meder@c-69-143-116-194.hsd1.md.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:18:55 more seriously, i don't know whether wg1 will arrive at anything that is generally liked. and i am separately wondering whether wg2 is hurting itself by not requesting accommodations from wg1 right now 02:19:35 I was a little surprised that one of the presentations will be on adding "guidelines" to the WGs. 02:20:37 i have a suspicion that the wg1 process has been so frustrating that any general appeal will be due to the superhuman efforts of a couple people, rather than to the input of many 02:21:17 i mean, any broad appeal of the end product 02:21:19 Accommodations for what? With one or two exceptions, everyone in WG2 is also in WG1. 02:21:59 My next thing is to put together a list of possible modules for WG2 to standardize, reject, or fob off on WG3, WG4, .... 02:22:17 I'm using R6RS, Racket, CL, Python, and Java as sources of ideas. 02:22:29 also the SRFIs. 02:22:36 I was thinking WG2 my put together subgroups for future SRFIs. 02:22:45 might put together 02:23:33 Threading, FFI, unified database interface, GUI. 02:23:58 neilv: I think those seeking broad appeal have already moved on to environments where progress may be made, even if there is some sacrifice in backwards compatibility. 02:24:10 there are not enough people using scheme for there to be steering committees creating working groups creating subcommittees to prepare requests for implementation 02:24:39 oh, and networking 02:24:52 Not subcommittes, but coordinate committees that can report later than WG2. 02:25:05 Actually WG2 can't create them, the SC can -- but we can recommend them. 02:25:16 ok, i have not laughed that hard in weeks 02:25:24 For example, if we decided to standardize something like a Tk interface, it would probably require a separate WG. 02:26:20 Rather than standardizing, how about implementing? 02:26:54 ATM, I have neither time nor energy for implementing on any but the smallest scale. 02:27:23 But I do not wish to standardize things out of whole cloth, either. 02:27:24 chandler: that's mostly my impression. though there are 2 or 3 people still working on the WGs 02:27:26 Oh, but we might get an excellent document out of this process. Worth its weight in paper, easily. 02:27:45 `I want to run Mumble on Scheme48, MIT Scheme, and Racket. Problem: it depends on foo, bar, and baz, which are not common between Scheme48, MIT Scheme, and Racket. In fact, not only does Mumble have this problem, but so do Grumble, Frumble, and Chrumble. Let's figure out how to make foo, bar, and baz common to the systems.' 02:28:26 The biggest stumbling block to implementing is lack of a portable module system. 02:28:37 "The part-time help of wits is no better than the full-time help of half-wits." --Herman Mankiewicz 02:28:43 And all the compatibility hacks (my own included) suck. 02:29:08 Even something like irregex, which has zero dependencies, is difficult to make portable. 02:29:16 At this point, one might say `Let's write up some wishful thinking about how we feel that foo, bar, and baz ought to look.' Another might say `Hack hack hack; here's something that works, here's why it works, here's why other alternatives don't work. Standardize that, and my life will be easier.' 02:29:18 Why so, specifically? 02:29:29 (irregex, that is) 02:30:01 Well, it would have been easier if I allowed myself use of SRFIs. 02:30:27 IOW, it was difficult to *write*, not difficult to port. 02:30:36 s/\./?/ 02:30:40 And writing Makefiles that concat or include files together to generate every different module system out there is a pain. 02:30:49 No, both are difficult. 02:31:04 -!- nowhere_man [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-89-111.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:31:49 So I'm perfectly happy if WG1 succeeds in nothing but R5RS + a module system, _and_ the major implementations all add support for that module system. 02:32:53 Which is why I came down *really* strongly on any kind of fancy module semantics - it would undermine the entire purpose of our effort by making acceptance less likely. 02:33:13 i agree that a portable module system is the single most important missing thing in my experience 02:33:53 before moving to racket, i mostly just used r5rs + srfi error + srfi string ports 02:34:01 Did you really need a module system? Would a syntactic include form have worked just as well, or did you need something else? 02:34:12 You really need name control. 02:34:13 include doesn't scale 02:34:38 neilv: Both error and string ports are on the table for WG1, and I don't think there has been any specific opposition to them. 02:34:40 what would "fancy module semantics" be? 02:35:29 Fare: specifying that module, import, and export forms can all be expanded by macros, which conflicts with many module systems out there 02:36:09 jcowan: what's included in "name control"? Defined exports and imports? Renaming? Automagical concatenation? 02:36:15 arcfide's proposal goes much further than that, though, including two types of modules to allow for anonymous and local modules 02:36:49 chandler: At present, yes. Also "only" and "except". 02:36:54 But that's it. 02:37:39 I'd like to know if people (other than Riastradh) favor immutable SRFI-39 parameters as opposed to mutable ones, per my current proposal. 02:37:50 jcowan: immutable! 02:38:25 No assignment to a parameter, only binding. 02:38:56 (Not sure if that "!" is "Yes!" or "No!" 02:39:09 ) 02:39:16 jonrafkind [~jon@c-67-172-254-235.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 02:39:17 I want to add agents (like termite threads) to Chibi, which gets complicated if the parameter mutations are supposed to be seen by other agents. 02:39:39 I think it's the name of a mutating procedure. 02:39:58 foof: so you're ruling out arcfide's proposal as too complex? 02:40:35 Fare: not just too complex, but also specifying semantics that are difficult for many module systems out there to interact with 02:41:35 jcowan, what do you mean by immutable parameters? 02:41:51 -!- mastertogo [~togo@ip70-171-249-111.tc.ph.cox.net] has left #scheme 02:41:53 as in your can locally bind, but not side-effect the local binding? 02:41:59 Just so. 02:42:33 so you have different forms in one case and the other? 02:43:03 It's a good idea. Common Lisp experience says that thread-local specials scale. Immutability simplifies the design and implementation of this. 02:43:16 The idea is to have a separation of concerns. Parameters are about dynamic binding; mutable objects like pairs are about mutability; sharing data between threads shoudl be done with something specific to threads. 02:43:33 lack of type-driven semantics often leads to either multiplication of forms in Lisp/Scheme or forms that are so general you can't easily analyze/optimize 02:43:48 "should" 02:44:02 OT: http://www.draconianoverlord.com/2010/07/22/dammit-mysql.html 02:44:02 Parameters are procedures in SRFI-39: call with zero arguments is a getter, call with one argument is a setter. 02:44:11 so you can locally bind to an explicit stateful cell if you want? 02:44:15 Right. 02:44:26 Or to a hypothetical thread-safe mailbox object. 02:44:28 toast` [~toast`@c-71-231-102-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 02:44:32 by the same token, shouldn't all variable bindings be immutable? 02:44:57 Yep. 02:45:02 Too late now. 02:45:19 Mutable variables are the single most confusing aspect of Scheme to novices in my experience. 02:45:27 There's a remark about that in the Rabbit thesis, to the effect that Scheme has mutable variables rather than cells so they could get it done in six months. 02:45:38 They add nothing important to the language. 02:45:43 ML got this right. 02:45:51 And Pure. 02:46:28 so the solution, adopt ML? 02:47:03 Find a time machine and omit ASET' from the beginning. 02:47:17 (Even Sussman & Steele were confused -- hence the ' in ASET'.) 02:47:47 But someone did point out, possibly on this channel, that mutable variables are more easily analyzed than cells, for they cannot escape. This of course is not an argument against *using* cells to implement mutable varaibles. 02:47:50 nowhere_man [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-89-111.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #scheme 02:48:04 x and (set! x) or (ref x) and (set! x), I don't see why it's such a big deal 02:48:13 Abandon backward compatibility. Old code can run in old implementations and compatibility modes. Move forward. 02:48:28 It's easier than finding a time machine. 02:48:55 Old code matters more than old implementations, IMO. 02:50:20 Old implementations usually run. How much old Scheme code do you run, jcowan? 02:52:44 timj__ [~timj@e176197103.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 02:52:50 foof, you can't pass a variable as an argument. Every other mutable location that novices encounter is part of an object you can pass as an argument, however. 02:54:23 phao [~phao@189.107.237.120] has joined #scheme 02:54:30 -!- phao [~phao@189.107.237.120] has left #scheme 02:55:04 curi_ [~curi@c-67-180-28-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 02:55:18 -!- curi_ [~curi@c-67-180-28-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:56:05 -!- timj_ [~timj@e176193240.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 02:56:09 asarch [~asarch@189.188.148.93] has joined #scheme 02:57:55 It's surprising to me that Scheme is hamstrung by compatibility requirements, when in no other language would it be as easy to satisfy such requirements by providing a reference implementation for the old language written in the new. 02:58:50 OT: http://www.draconianoverlord.com/2010/07/22/dammit-mysql.html 03:00:25 It's that *@#$ about "jewel-like perfection", IMHO. That may apply to the syntax forms and to syntax-rules, but *not* to the procedure library. 03:02:38 Nothing wrong with libraries, nor does that conflict with jewel-like perfection. 03:02:50 Libraries are just the setting for the jewel. 03:04:20 And defining a basic, compatible module form is trivial. But everytime the topic comes up, someone shouts "but, but, what about _units_?!" or "it must only be macros!" or "hey, how about adding versions?" 03:04:45 I meant that the specific library in the R2RS -> R5RS standard is not especially jewel-like at all. 03:08:58 But how will we program without transcript-on? :O 03:12:00 Yes; the other thing that modules give us is an easy way to address the various kinds of optionality (not all explicit) in R5RS. 03:15:32 prsteele [~user@c-76-113-57-166.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:16:45 -!- prsteele [~user@c-76-113-57-166.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has left #scheme 03:25:54 kniu [~kniu@pool-71-106-4-84.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 03:26:21 prsteele [~user@c-76-113-57-166.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:26:29 waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:27:15 can anyone tell me when Scheme will automatically cast a number down the numeric tower, i.e. from a float to an integer? 03:28:02 The answer is "never", but note that inexact (i.e. float) numbers vs. exact numbers is orthogonal to the tower itself, which is complex > real > rational > integer. 03:28:33 so why does (quotient 5.0 2) succeed? Does it treat 5.0 as an integer? 03:29:05 5.0 is indeed an integer. 03:29:15 also, thanks for the distinction between the tower and exactness 03:30:08 and if 5.0 was produced by another operation, like (/ 5.55 1.11)? 03:30:16 Ignoring that that hits 4.9999999.... 03:31:37 If, to the best of its computational ability, Scheme cannot distinguish the result of some computation from 5.0, then it will treat that result as an integer. 03:31:52 okay, thanks 03:32:05 Arguably, applying quotient and friends to an inexact integer is a bad idea. 03:32:14 sure, I agree 03:32:41 I just tried it to see how it responded, and was surprised that it sometimes worked 03:33:06 any idea what the epsilon is for approximate equality? or is that up to the implementation? 03:34:06 Normally equality is bitwise exact on exact numbers, so it depends on the representation, which is typically 64-bit IEEE nowadays. 03:34:07 fowlduck [~fowlduck@24-177-112-133.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com] has joined #scheme 03:34:27 okay 03:34:40 thanks, all 03:36:00 -!- MonononcQc [~Ferd@modemcable062.225-20-96.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:36:52 rudybot: eval (inexact->exact 5.55) 03:36:53 neilv: ; Value: 6248744482976563/1125899906842624 03:37:01 -!- fowlduck [~fowlduck@24-177-112-133.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:37:07 i wouldn't mind wg1 improving that 03:39:17 It may not be pretty, but on the assumption that every bit in the IEEE 64-bit representation of 5.55 is meaningful, that's probably indeed the correct fraction to represent the value. 03:39:50 Who would doubt me? 03:40:06 You can see this happening more clearly when you deal with inexact numbers greater than 2^53, where not every integer is separately representable. 03:41:01 -!- bgs100 is now known as bgs000 03:41:38 how about when numbers are read? 03:41:48 rudybot: eval (let ((x (read (open-input-string "5.55")))) (values (exact? x) (inexact->exact x))) 03:41:49 neilv: ; Value: #f 03:41:50 neilv: ; Value#2: 6248744482976563/1125899906842624 03:41:56 hohoho [~hohoho@p4ae269.tokynt01.ap.so-net.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 03:42:38 The standard requires that Scheme convert from strings to numbers and vice versa with full precision, but not all Schemes actually do. 03:42:40 the ieee representation has nothing to do with the read form 03:42:45 Stop, that tickles! 03:43:22 so the spec would require that 5.55 be read as a rational, 111/20 ? 03:45:49 -!- kniu [~kniu@pool-71-106-4-84.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 03:46:22 kniu [~kniu@pool-71-106-4-84.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 03:50:17 rudybot: eval #e5.55 03:50:19 chandler: your sandbox is ready 03:50:19 chandler: ; Value: 111/20 03:50:35 *rudybot* giggles 03:50:42 #e -> exact? 03:51:02 which is supposed to be the default? 03:53:32 rudybot: eval (exact? 5.55) 03:53:32 pizza_: ; Value: #f 03:54:23 rudybot: eval (exact? #e5.55) 03:54:26 *offby1: your scheme sandbox is ready 03:54:27 *offby1: ; Value: #t 03:54:39 "If the written representation of a number has no exactness prefix, the constant may be either inexact or exact. It is inexact if it contains a decimal point, an exponent, or a ``#'' character in the place of a digit, otherwise it is exact." 03:55:06 i had just hit middle-mouse to paste that exact quote, and was about to hit enter 03:56:19 thanks again 03:56:44 i'm wondering about the rationale of that 03:57:10 why not have 5.55 read as an exact? 03:57:40 ya; I doubt anyone would intentionally, explicitly type a number that they don't want representable in binary 03:58:21 I like the way Haskell's numeric literals work. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in Scheme. 03:58:52 were it not for the goodness of racket, i would have moved to haskell already 03:59:50 Riastradh: pointer, or brief explanation? 04:02:14 1/2 reads as the code `fromInteger (a representation of the integer 1) / fromInteger (a representation of the integer 2)'. 04:02:25 cpr420 [~cpr@unaffiliated/cpr420] has joined #scheme 04:02:54 Context, inferred through the type system, dictates what definition of fromInteger and / to use. 04:03:43 Similarly, 1.23 reads as `fromRational (123 / 100)'. 04:04:14 Well, rather, `fromRational (Ratio 123 100)', where `Ratio' is the constructor for integral ratios. 04:04:43 (I have got some details wrong, probably, such as the spelling of `Ratio', but that's the basic idea.) 04:06:26 I think 'Ratio' is the type, and '%' is the constructor, but don't trust me on that 04:07:21 Yes, but even that's not right, because the reader also reduces the numerator and denominator to be coprime before passing them to the constructor. 04:07:56 Anyway, details aside, what's important is that the reader faithfully preserves the information that was written, and puts it into whatever format the surrounding code is going to use it for. 04:08:44 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:12:00 Gotcha. Is "." treated in the same way, or as a low-level constituent of float literals? 04:12:41 prsteele: People type numbers like 0.1 all the time that are not *exactly* representable. And if you want 1/10, you can say 1/10 or #e0.1 04:14:16 do you mean not exactly representable as ieee floating-point? 04:28:55 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-177-53.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 04:36:00 Right, given that almost all systems are IEEE now. 04:36:16 (Well, except IBM Z-Series) 04:38:04 -!- kniu [~kniu@pool-71-106-4-84.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:38:44 why not read "5.55" as an exact rational? 04:38:50 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has left #scheme 04:38:57 jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 04:39:31 Convenience and compatibility. Since the earliest days of Fortran, programmers have assumed that literals with decimal poitns are floats. Scheme allows a simple override with #e. 04:39:39 reading "5.55" as an inexact seems to be purely a low-level efficiency concern or laziness, so far as i can tell 04:41:14 If it's laziness to make things easier for people, let's hear it for laziness. 04:41:21 what is the compatibility argument? 04:41:42 kniu [~kniu@pool-71-106-4-84.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 04:42:04 that someone has "5.55" in a text file somewhere, and they intend for it to be inexact or to be represented as an ieee float? 04:42:17 and we want to use the scheme reader on that text file? 04:45:17 is it that the question is not what we think the user intended when they had "5.55" in some text for the reader, but rather compatibility with what we want the *print* format to be? 04:47:01 because print format would be a good argument, imho. making it print inexacts with #i prefix would actually break substantial legacy code 04:48:55 well, i'm not sure how much legacy code would be affected, if "#i" prefix is added only on "write" and not on "display" 04:48:57 -!- waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:49:14 waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 04:49:54 probably a little code i wrote would break, but that's fixable, and it would break only because i was being lazy 05:04:10 -!- Fare [~Fare@c-24-218-127-11.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:07:04 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:07:32 mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 05:08:57 walterma` [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:09:00 -!- dfeuer [~dfeuer@wikimedia/Dfeuer] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:09:29 -!- prsteele [~user@c-76-113-57-166.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:09:57 dfeuer [~dfeuer@wikimedia/Dfeuer] has joined #scheme 05:11:58 prsteele [~user@c-76-113-57-166.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:12:23 -!- prsteele [~user@c-76-113-57-166.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has left #scheme 05:12:52 -!- waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:13:50 -!- walterma` [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:21:10 -!- cky [~cky@cpe-065-190-148-048.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 05:22:45 pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has joined #scheme 05:25:45 -!- neilv [~user@dsl092-071-029.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:30:50 mathk [~mathk@lns-bzn-54-82-251-88-28.adsl.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 05:35:32 walterma` [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:36:35 -!- walterma` is now known as waltermai 05:36:39 -!- saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-FIVE-THIRTY-SEVEN.MIT.EDU] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:38:21 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 05:39:03 saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-FIVE-THIRTY-SEVEN.MIT.EDU] has joined #scheme 05:42:13 Delita [~pete@cpe-74-64-94-88.hvc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 05:44:17 -!- Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 05:49:32 Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has joined #scheme 05:51:39 Modius [~Modius@cpe-24-28-30-165.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 05:52:31 -!- Modius [~Modius@cpe-24-28-30-165.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded] 05:53:23 Modius [~Modius@cpe-24-28-30-165.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 05:53:38 phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has joined #scheme 05:54:35 -!- cpr420 [~cpr@unaffiliated/cpr420] has quit [Quit: Bye!] 06:00:12 ASau` [~user@83.69.227.32] has joined #scheme 06:01:24 -!- ASau [~user@83.69.227.32] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:03:04 -!- pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:04:34 -!- luz [~davids@201.17.88.176] has quit [Quit: Client exiting] 06:05:10 -!- joelmccracken [~joelmccra@pool-72-95-149-22.pitbpa.east.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: joelmccracken] 06:09:35 -!- hohoho [~hohoho@p4ae269.tokynt01.ap.so-net.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:09:36 -!- ASau` [~user@83.69.227.32] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:10:08 ASau` [~user@83.69.227.32] has joined #scheme 06:11:07 hohoho [~hohoho@p4ae269.tokynt01.ap.so-net.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 06:15:39 -!- asarch [~asarch@189.188.148.93] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:17:04 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@c-67-172-254-235.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 06:18:58 adu [~ajr@softbank220043138128.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 06:19:12 -!- toast` [~toast`@c-71-231-102-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: toast`] 06:23:51 -!- saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-FIVE-THIRTY-SEVEN.MIT.EDU] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 06:26:27 xwl_` [~user@esprx01x.nokia.com] has joined #scheme 06:43:15 -!- ASau` [~user@83.69.227.32] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 06:44:50 pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has joined #scheme 06:52:45 saccade [~saccade@209-6-54-113.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 06:56:48 R3cur51v3 [~Recursive@209-20-84-78.slicehost.net] has joined #scheme 07:13:06 -!- waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:13:23 waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 07:20:25 rdd [~rdd@c83-250-52-182.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 07:20:28 -!- xwl_` [~user@esprx01x.nokia.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:21:34 HG` [~HG@xdsl-92-252-121-46.dip.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 07:27:49 -!- adu [~ajr@softbank220043138128.bbtec.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 07:34:12 meder__ [~meder@c-69-143-116-194.hsd1.md.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 07:41:56 -!- meder__ [~meder@c-69-143-116-194.hsd1.md.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 07:50:44 -!- paperkettles [~chris@2001:5c0:1104:f400:226:bbff:fe0c:b57f] has quit [Quit: paperkettles] 07:53:37 drwho [~drwho@c-76-124-164-157.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 08:01:21 -!- pigoz [~pigoz@lilac.feralhosting.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:10:49 -!- Spewns [~jake@97-92-222-240.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 08:13:11 rdd` [~rdd@c83-250-52-182.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 08:14:37 -!- rdd [~rdd@c83-250-52-182.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 08:14:44 -!- R3cur51v3 [~Recursive@209-20-84-78.slicehost.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:14:56 cthuluh [moo@wxcvbn.org] has joined #scheme 08:15:23 -!- rdd` is now known as rdd 08:15:41 will_ [~will@79.83.74.151] has joined #scheme 08:16:05 hello 08:23:22 -!- will_ [~will@79.83.74.151] has quit [Quit: Quitte] 08:23:50 paperkettles [~chris@ip72-195-132-159.ri.ri.cox.net] has joined #scheme 08:25:12 schmir [~schmir@mail.brainbot.com] has joined #scheme 08:25:15 will_ [~will@151.74.83-79.rev.gaoland.net] has joined #scheme 08:28:51 lvillani [~lvillani@fedora/lvillani] has joined #scheme 08:31:03 mmc [~michal@109.112.54.32] has joined #scheme 08:31:06 cky [~cky@cpe-065-190-148-048.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 08:36:37 masm [~masm@2.80.159.86] has joined #scheme 08:46:29 stis_ [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has joined #scheme 08:48:31 fradgers- [~fradgers-@5adafe9d.bb.sky.com] has joined #scheme 08:52:50 adu [~ajr@softbank220043138128.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 08:54:07 -!- mbohun [~mbohun@202.124.74.202] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 08:54:09 -!- fradgers- [~fradgers-@5adafe9d.bb.sky.com] has left #scheme 08:54:13 fradgers- [~fradgers-@5adafe9d.bb.sky.com] has joined #scheme 08:54:31 -!- adu [~ajr@softbank220043138128.bbtec.net] has quit [Client Quit] 08:54:51 If I use (let ((x (proc))) (proc2 x) (proc3 x)), is proc run seperately for proc1 and proc2, or is proc run once, proc2 and proc3 therefore receiving the same values? 08:55:21 -!- Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:59:25 -!- waltermai [~user@c-68-54-64-79.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:01:23 offby1` [~user@q-static-138-125.avvanta.com] has joined #scheme 09:03:36 -!- offby1 [~user@pdpc/supporter/monthlybyte/offby1] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 09:04:05 ... 10 minutes 09:04:16 would it hurt to wait just 10 minutes for an answer? 09:05:33 I guess he did not really want to know 09:05:35 -!- bgs000 [cheshire@gateway/shell/57o9.org/x-gbwzajzklhwdlnop] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 09:07:00 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 09:08:04 -!- broquaint [81911bca88@spc2-brig11-0-0-cust40.asfd.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 09:08:30 broquaint [e4652a55ed@spc2-brig11-0-0-cust40.asfd.cable.virginmedia.com] has joined #scheme 09:08:54 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-177-53.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:09:33 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-177-53.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 09:11:12 Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has joined #scheme 09:13:55 bgs000 [cheshire@gateway/shell/57o9.org/x-utihptsftlszmgek] has joined #scheme 09:19:51 karme [~user@2a01:4f8:100:51c1::4] has joined #scheme 09:25:26 mmc1 [~michal@109.112.35.15] has joined #scheme 09:26:49 -!- mmc [~michal@109.112.54.32] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 09:27:02 Hi I wrote a little scheme interpreter, I would like to know if is there any executable test suite that cover the scheme (R5RS or anyother) ? 09:27:51 google r5rs_pitfalls.scm 09:28:06 that's a tough test to pass 09:28:53 if you want some library stuff, the r5rs_test.scm in chibi scheme should LOAD fine in any scheme 09:30:50 foof, that looks great. pitfalls is to much at the current state, but the r5rs test looks more realistic at this moment. 09:32:38 do you have syntax-rules? 09:34:25 foof no. I a very simple interpreter. I was looking for a set of test that check lambda, begin, etc 09:34:39 justicefries [~gerred@65.100.130.168] has joined #scheme 09:35:07 foo, this is my first attempt to write an interpreter. 09:36:41 sure, then you just want to redefine test at the top as a procedure 09:37:11 -!- justicefries [~gerred@65.100.130.168] has quit [Quit: justicefries] 09:37:28 justicefries [~thefry@65.100.130.168] has joined #scheme 09:38:50 Komi [Komi@83.231.61.211] has joined #scheme 09:39:27 -!- paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has quit [Quit: IRC is just a multiplayer Notepad] 09:39:36 foof, I have been using rackunit, with something like (check-equal? (evaluate #f) #f "false value ") 09:40:57 paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has joined #scheme 09:41:28 hi 09:49:14 CBro2007 [~manukaul@213.1.222.66] has joined #scheme 09:52:59 -!- mmc1 [~michal@109.112.35.15] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 09:53:42 just reading through SICP 09:53:59 I actually just started.. have more of a C/C++ background 09:54:05 but this stuff is really interesting 09:54:06 :) 09:54:23 but wondering if Scheme can be used for some real world programming? 09:54:38 or is Common Lisp the lisp dialect that is more in use? 09:54:47 You might be interested in this then, CBro2007 - http://universityofreddit.com/v2/class.php?id=57 09:55:50 broquaint: how does it work? 09:56:12 is that your site? 09:56:47 I am listening to some UCB lectures online in youtube.. he is pretty good 09:57:04 only thing is that his examples aren't as applicable .. so I am working those out on my own 09:57:28 I actually came across a site where people have done all the solutions to the excercises ... so I can compare mine to theirs 09:58:29 It's not my site, CBro2007, just a recent effort for people to go through SICP collectively. 09:58:41 k 09:58:58 sounds good but it means I will have to pace myself to them and might be a pain to do that 09:59:00 :) 09:59:05 Hehe 09:59:24 AIUI Lisp gets more coverage in real world usage. 10:00:48 what s AIUI? 10:00:56 never heard of it.. not that I am a LISP person 10:01:25 As I Understand It 10:01:28 mmc [~michal@109.112.35.15] has joined #scheme 10:01:38 This might be of interest with regards to the real world application of Lisp - http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2491 10:02:12 CBro2007, Clojure is gaining a lot of attention 10:02:28 wow there a lot of LISP dialects huh? 10:03:02 I am actually going to start a FP course next semester and they use Standard ML 10:03:28 but I hear that this SICP book clears up a lot of fundamentals about FP and helps to think in a more Functional way so to say 10:03:47 is that a good starting point to learn functional programming? Even if its not LISP we will be using? 10:04:47 It's a fine starting point, CBro2007, you might also want to look at How To Design Programs - http://www.htdp.org/ 10:04:48 -!- lvillani [~lvillani@fedora/lvillani] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:05:35 it looks like when you are going into something more large scale the functional aspects get diluted with OO and other low-level stuff 10:06:04 broquaint, I agree, HTDP is a better starting point. 10:07:20 what to think functionally? 10:07:34 I like SICP though.. its very well written and its examples are pretty good 10:07:59 I actually wanted to get my head around recursion much more and FP seems to do these really well 10:08:32 If you're comfortable with SICP and want to get ti grips with recursion then stick with it. 10:08:40 s/ti grips/to grips/ 10:08:49 recursion in imperative programming is always give 2-3 pages in a book.. while with FP its almost like a loop 10:08:58 instead of looping you seem to recurse a lot :) 10:09:11 I could be wrong with what I am seeing... but seems to be the case most of the time 10:09:50 ok thanks.. and back to the video lecture now 10:09:56 another book I was looking at was Little Schemer before 10:10:03 -!- jmcphers [~jmcphers@218.185.108.156] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:10:15 but someone asked me to read SICP before using LSchemer 10:10:44 jmcphers [~jmcphers@218.185.108.156] has joined #scheme 10:12:18 Also good and worth a read. 10:12:35 You could probably read The Little Schemer in conjunction with SICP to be honest, I think they complement each other. 10:14:56 tommylommykins [~tommylomm@5ad471cc.bb.sky.com] has joined #scheme 10:22:08 adu [~ajr@softbank220043138128.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 10:27:43 -!- mmc [~michal@109.112.35.15] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 10:33:48 mmc [~michal@109.116.184.5] has joined #scheme 10:39:27 -!- paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has quit [Quit: IRC is just a multiplayer Notepad] 10:39:57 paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has joined #scheme 10:45:03 -!- mmc [~michal@109.116.184.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:51:47 mbohun [~mbohun@ppp115-156.static.internode.on.net] has joined #scheme 10:52:24 mmc [~michal@109.116.184.5] has joined #scheme 11:06:11 -!- gabot [~eli@winooski.ccs.neu.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 11:10:47 CBro2007_ [~manukaul@213.1.222.66] has joined #scheme 11:10:47 -!- CBro2007 [~manukaul@213.1.222.66] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:15:58 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 11:24:25 -!- justicefries [~thefry@65.100.130.168] has quit [Quit: justicefries] 11:26:38 -!- CBro2007_ [~manukaul@213.1.222.66] has quit [Quit: CBro2007_] 11:27:37 metasyntax` [~taylor@72.86.89.174] has joined #scheme 11:39:02 dark_ [~dark@engcomp.ufrn.br] has joined #scheme 11:39:30 i am looking for a very simple implementation of scheme, in build sense 11:39:38 (fewer dependencies, written in C, etc) 11:39:48 -!- hohoho [~hohoho@p4ae269.tokynt01.ap.so-net.ne.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:39:51 i need to compile it, every dependency i need to install myself 11:39:54 any suggestion? 11:39:58 chicken, maybe? 11:39:58 -!- paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has quit [Quit: IRC is just a multiplayer Notepad] 11:40:16 also a interpreter 11:40:22 an interpreter is more important, actually 11:40:35 infact, just an interpreter 11:41:12 ok chicken has an interpreter 11:41:29 paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has joined #scheme 11:45:58 mmc1 [~michal@109.112.14.73] has joined #scheme 11:46:33 alvatar [~alvatar@17.127.222.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #scheme 11:47:07 -!- mmc [~michal@109.116.184.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:48:23 ok, compiling chicken.. 11:55:18 -!- tommylommykins [~tommylomm@5ad471cc.bb.sky.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 11:55:46 -!- Nshag [user@lns-bzn-57-82-249-63-218.adsl.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 11:58:38 compiled, =) 11:59:21 tommylommykins [~tommylomm@5ad471cc.bb.sky.com] has joined #scheme 12:02:57 -!- snarkyboojum [~snarkyboo@110-174-43-105.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Quit: snarkyboojum] 12:05:30 -!- schmir [~schmir@mail.brainbot.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:16:12 snarkyboojum [~snarkyboo@110-174-43-105.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #scheme 12:30:31 acarrico [~acarrico@pppoe-68-142-49-233.gmavt.net] has joined #scheme 12:31:58 Nshag [user@lns-bzn-53-82-65-18-119.adsl.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 12:33:13 NNshag [user@lns-bzn-23-82-248-86-52.adsl.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 12:33:52 -!- will_ [~will@151.74.83-79.rev.gaoland.net] has quit [Quit: Quitte] 12:35:06 CBro2007 [~manukaul@213.1.222.66] has joined #scheme 12:35:30 -!- adu [~ajr@softbank220043138128.bbtec.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 12:36:48 -!- Nshag [user@lns-bzn-53-82-65-18-119.adsl.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:37:02 -!- snarkyboojum [~snarkyboo@110-174-43-105.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Quit: snarkyboojum] 12:37:55 -!- phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:39:27 joelmccracken [~joelmccra@pool-72-95-149-22.pitbpa.east.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 12:39:58 -!- paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has quit [Quit: IRC is just a multiplayer Notepad] 12:41:58 paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has joined #scheme 12:43:17 -!- antoszka [~antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has quit [Quit: +++ killed by SIGSEGV +++] 12:48:50 zard1989 [~user@Joe.m4.ntu.edu.tw] has joined #scheme 12:49:19 nowhereman [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-48-119.w92-148.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #scheme 12:49:38 -!- joelmccracken [~joelmccra@pool-72-95-149-22.pitbpa.east.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: joelmccracken] 12:50:09 dark_: chicken has very few dependencies, indeed. You need only gcc and make, basically. 12:50:20 -!- nowhere_man [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-89-111.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 12:50:57 (GNU make) 12:51:33 yes, i'm running the interpreter. now i have to figure out how to make my application.. (a theorem prover. i think i will do backtracking with (amb). it sounds cool) 12:52:22 hmm, there is a ##logic.. 12:52:37 Nice. There's #chicken if you have chicken-specific questions. 12:53:10 ok=) 12:57:22 antoszka [~antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has joined #scheme 13:01:56 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:03:47 mmc [~michal@109.117.134.8] has joined #scheme 13:05:17 -!- mmc1 [~michal@109.112.14.73] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 13:10:08 joelmccracken [~joelmccra@66.37.58.254] has joined #scheme 13:10:47 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 13:12:31 hi guys, I am reading section 1.3 in SICP about higher order fns.. I think I understand what its advantages are from the examples... but where does it apply? 13:12:37 I have a C/C++ background 13:12:48 can this be thought of a way of doing overloading? 13:13:02 no, it's a generic function 13:13:03 but obviously more powerful 13:13:18 i mean, i don't know this chapter, but think about C's qsort 13:13:22 dark_: and when would you choose to write a higher order fn 13:13:38 CBro2007, when i am doing operations that can be generalized to any function 13:13:57 CBro2007, do you know hoq qsort (man 3 qsort) works? 13:13:58 the example I am looking at is to compute the sums of series 13:14:03 hmm 13:14:11 i think the most interesting high order function is map 13:14:11 so its pretty cool how it works 13:14:27 map receives a function and a list, and returns a list that applies the function to all elements 13:14:32 -!- lusory [~bart@bb219-74-123-108.singnet.com.sg] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:14:46 so if the function doubles a number, '(1 2 3) becomes '(2 4 6) 13:14:49 I have done some perl too and I think I seen a map there too 13:15:08 which might have been copied from functional languages :) 13:15:25 of course it is =) python is also full of FP 13:15:32 ruby even more 13:15:50 hmm I wish I had done some sort of LISP earlier on or something 13:15:53 would have been fun 13:15:58 :) 13:16:05 this SICP is pretty well written too I think 13:16:47 yes it is o.o 13:16:59 i followed the lectures on youtube as well 13:17:04 very nice .-. 13:17:06 (map (lambda (x) (+ x 2)) '(1 2 3)) => (3 4 5) 13:17:08 the ones with UCB? 13:17:25 someone said they were outdated but the link said it was from 2010 13:17:35 so I am assuming this was a pretty recently taught course 13:17:45 or did you check out the ones from MIT? 13:18:07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQLUPjefuWA 13:18:21 no, it's from the 80's! 13:18:24 =) 13:18:31 -!- bgs000 [cheshire@gateway/shell/57o9.org/x-utihptsftlszmgek] has quit [Changing host] 13:18:31 bgs000 [cheshire@unaffiliated/bgs100] has joined #scheme 13:18:31 -!- bgs000 [cheshire@unaffiliated/bgs100] has quit [Changing host] 13:18:31 bgs000 [cheshire@gateway/shell/57o9.org/x-utihptsftlszmgek] has joined #scheme 13:18:33 -!- bgs000 is now known as bgs100 13:18:41 nah cannot view youtube videoes from here 13:18:49 just tell me the title of the video :) 13:18:55 SICP / What is "Computer Science" ? 13:19:03 i searched sicp youtube at google 13:19:10 CBro2007: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/ 13:19:12 but there is also links to the video in hi-res at the page 13:19:19 but below the video does it say University of Cal Berkley? 13:19:27 no, it's from MIT 13:19:30 ah thats MIT ones yeah? mario-goulart ? 13:19:34 ah ok 13:19:40 I been following the one with UCB 13:19:45 he is pretty good too 13:19:47 mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 13:19:54 just search for .. SICP + UCB 13:20:03 am on lecture 3 now :) 13:20:09 lusory [~bart@bb119-74-153-71.singnet.com.sg] has joined #scheme 13:20:14 where he talked about higher order fns 13:20:16 i like the introduction of sicp .-. i planned to translate it more than one time 13:20:38 translate it to what? 13:21:00 To Visual Basic? 13:21:23 heh 13:21:28 hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw227224.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 13:25:46 adu [~ajr@softbank220043139062.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 13:27:10 -!- hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw227224.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:27:54 do I need to learn Lambda Calculus to understand Scheme better? 13:28:07 There is mention of using Lambda calculus for higher order fns 13:28:22 -!- alvatar [~alvatar@17.127.222.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:28:45 ? 13:29:19 CBro2007: Not needed. 13:29:42 mario-goulart: can I think of lambda as "anonymous functions" 13:29:52 Yes. 13:29:53 alvatar [~alvatar@252.127.222.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #scheme 13:29:58 whereby you don't have to give it a specific name .. but its handy to use 13:30:00 ah ok 13:30:02 That's what they are. 13:30:08 yeah sounds like it :) 13:30:14 wicked! 13:30:44 I wonder if lambda is just a scheme thing? or will it be used in most FP languages? 13:30:48 like ML, Haskell etc? 13:31:33 mario-goulart: don't know if you have had any experience with the more modern FP langs? 13:31:59 Other languages have lambda too. I guess it's from Lisp. 13:32:39 CBro2007: if by modern FP langs you mean haskell, I have no experience. 13:32:53 k 13:32:59 yeah Standard ML maybe? 13:33:14 Haskell has lambda e.g. \x -> x*x 13:33:16 so learning this Lambda concept will help 13:33:28 bremner: ok thanks 13:33:34 No. I'm mostly used to dynamic programming languages. 13:33:46 so is the \ meaning lambda? 13:33:50 yes 13:34:12 (lambda (x) (* x x)) if my scheme is not too broken 13:35:00 -!- paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:35:11 ok 13:35:15 I guess any language calling itself functional should have a lambda equivalent, since that seems equivalent to having first class functions to me. 13:35:15 gabot [~eli@winooski.ccs.neu.edu] has joined #scheme 13:35:25 ok 13:35:38 I am just learning it now.. reading through SICP to get the hang of how FP works 13:36:16 was wondering how much different Common Lisp is from Scheme? 13:36:33 some people say that Scheme has a very neat syntax in comparison to Common Lisp 13:36:56 If I go through SICP I assume that I am also getting the hang of some scheme too 13:37:09 just wondering how much is transferrable? 13:40:05 paint [~paint@unaffiliated/paint] has joined #scheme 13:40:29 CBro2007: A lambda is just a function without a name. Many languages have them. 13:40:50 metasyntax: yep I got that.... 13:41:04 what about the similarity between Common LISP and Scheme? 13:41:08 is there a lot similar? 13:42:03 On many levels, most languages are similar, if you're new to the idea of "functional programming" then a lot of the ideas you'll learn are usable even in languages which aren't considered "functional" usually. 13:42:25 but scheme is by no means completely functional. 13:43:07 ok 13:43:25 but I mean its good to illustrate the concepts though yeah? 13:43:35 Absolutely 13:43:56 CBro2007: Common Lisp standardizes a lot of things that the Scheme Reports didn't, but Scheme implementations almost always make up for that with their own capabilities. 13:44:32 k 13:44:47 yeah there are like a million lisp interpretors out there :) 13:45:44 And Lisp machines 13:46:13 I mean then how do LISP people choose which implementation to go with? 13:46:25 Mostly by experimentation. 13:46:41 You wouldn't want to go half way through a project and going.. oh shit this is missing and I cannot do it using this implementation 13:46:45 what then? 13:46:53 Or at least that's the case for me. I find that with Scheme each implementation has its own strengths and depending on what I want to do I choose the one that fits the task. 13:46:58 I suppose you got to implement it all yourself then yeah? 13:47:12 CBro2007: For the most part, yes. :-) 13:47:13 metasyntax: sounds like a real pain 13:47:15 :) 13:47:37 I mean then you got to have years of experience writing Scheme code to know really which implementation will work and which one won't 13:47:38 Fare [~Fare@c-24-218-127-11.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 13:47:53 Right. So, if you don't have that experience, ask someone who does. 13:47:55 maybe thats what is the biggest buzzkill when it comes to coding in LISP 13:48:07 chandler: yeah thanks :) 13:48:09 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:48:23 CBro2007: That's my biggest buzz kill. 13:48:36 It's the same as any tool choice. Once you have a great deal of experience, you can make an informed decision yourself. Until you get there, ask for advice. 13:49:27 CBro2007: If you're looking to get started, I recommend Chicken Scheme. It's got a lot of features, and nice libraries for common tasks. Guile is also very good in this respect, and will see a new release soon. 13:49:49