00:05:22 -!- jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 00:05:39 jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #ccl 02:21:43 -!- rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-112-40.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [] 02:32:11 rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-112-40.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #ccl 02:36:29 -!- rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-112-40.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit] 03:22:24 -!- jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [] 10:52:24 jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #ccl 12:19:59 -!- sellout [n=greg@c-24-128-50-176.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [] 12:34:29 -!- jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [] 13:10:10 sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has joined #ccl 13:59:09 anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07812.woburma.wayport.net] has joined #ccl 14:38:27 -!- anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07812.woburma.wayport.net] has quit [] 14:58:16 jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #ccl 15:23:34 anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx09269.readima.wayport.net] has joined #ccl 15:47:59 palter [n=palter@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has joined #ccl 15:48:25 -!- palter [n=palter@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has quit [Client Quit] 16:58:54 -!- Modius [n=Modius@24.174.112.56] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 17:01:09 -!- anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx09269.readima.wayport.net] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 17:03:49 Modius [n=Modius@24.174.112.56] has joined #ccl 17:16:20 gbyers: I didn't understand: " This may be fixed in r12475/r12476 in the trunk." <-- Does this mean you fixed it, or that it *might* be working in there? 17:17:05 rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-112-40.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #ccl 17:17:06 I mean that after changing it I haven't been able to get it to fail. 17:17:28 I don't know how to guarantee that it won't fail. Do you ? 17:21:17 gbyers: Do I need to rebuild the .exe or is this all in the image? 17:21:34 I checked in a new .exe. 17:32:47 _Trickster_ [i=Trickste@77.232.135.67] has joined #ccl 17:41:36 -!- rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-112-40.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [] 17:56:44 rme [n=rme@pool-70-105-112-40.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #ccl 18:10:21 milanj [n=milan@93.87.181.140] has joined #ccl 19:14:22 gbyers: Your latest .exe appears to have resolved the problem of 571. 19:14:55 I will, of course, now go write a REALLY abusive thread/gc-tester (I'll do it in bordeaux so as to punish other implementations also). 19:17:24 alms_ [n=alms@146-115-42-237.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #ccl 19:22:13 Modius: That way it'll work with CLtL3 as well ;) 19:22:47 Modius: And feel free to add tests to bordeaux as well. The current test suite is pretty tiny. 19:34:58 -!- alms [n=alms@146-115-42-237.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 20:07:05 sellout: I still can't figure out how to get my lispworks-compatibility patch into Bordeaux. . . . 20:08:00 *sellout* looks around nervously. 20:08:08 Sorry, that's my fault, I think. 20:08:41 I started digging into it to move your tests into the test suite and make some other changes, and never finished it. 20:08:45 you own bordeaux? 20:08:53 I don't have tests, I wrote a notify for lispworks 20:09:04 condition-wait, whatever 20:10:01 Lispworks' model for condition/wait/notify is completely different - making it work with bordeaux - it was quite a spiffy bit of code if I do say so myself :) 20:10:58 Modius: fe[nl]ix is the real maintainer these days, but I did write it originally. 20:11:05 Modius: I agree it's spiffy. 20:11:18 (your code) 20:11:25 You saw my lispworks add? 20:11:38 Yeah, I'm looking at the file right now. 20:11:39 It didn't seme to get into the bordeaux that's shared online 20:11:52 Modius: It's, um ... in my inbox. 20:12:14 -!- milanj [n=milan@93.87.181.140] has quit ["This computer has gone to sleep"] 20:13:16 You have this "unit-test-lw-conditions" that should be reworked to go in the test suite. So it'll get run on all platforms. 20:13:30 Aah - I forgot - wrote it (I think) over a year ago 20:13:31 Other than that, I think your code is basically drop-in. 20:13:37 Modius: Yeah, really sorry. 20:13:53 I haven't followed this "cltl" business - are threads being standardised? Around bordeaux or something else? 20:14:08 I mean, can you give me a link to where the core capabilities are being discussed? 20:15:02 Modius: there's a mailing list linked from here: http://ilc2009.scheming.org/node/48 20:15:28 but there's not a lot of discussion on it. There's some talk on IRC, and yeah, I think they're adding threads, based on Bordeaux. 20:17:43 Hope Trivial-Garbage (weakref/weak-hash-tables) is getting as much love 20:23:21 Modius: Yeah, no idea. I know iolib is supposed to be in there, too. 20:23:58 Modius: Ah, you sent the patch directly to me rather than the mailing list. If you hadn't someone else probably would have picked up my slack. 20:24:41 Of concern was whether to hook up notify-single or notify-all - the doc said single was preferable; but everyone else seems to be doing "all" 20:24:58 Worried a bit about portability - I'm on the fence on whether that should be specified or not. 20:25:37 This being lisp, we could probably get 95% of the way to a complete language revision just by having a good set of compatibility libraries and testing implementations against them. 20:27:28 Modius: Yeah, that's basically what CLtL3 plans to do. Integrate good portability libs with the spec, throw out some of the legacy stuff, and fix inconsistencies (like not really allowing extensible sequences) 20:27:48 It's not meant to introduce novel stuff that isn't in use. 20:36:16 God - reading my lispworks.lisp changes. I must have been really into it back when I actually wrote this :) All those comments and cases and a unit-test, I was a much less jaded dude back then :) 20:37:12 Heh :) 20:40:08 I need to figure out some way to make money off this lisp business, before they one day find me slumped over a desk under 200 skype windows containing questions outta bangalore with C# questions. 20:40:29 -!- _Trickster_ [i=Trickste@77.232.135.67] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 20:55:49 sellout: Have you looked at how lispworks actually implements notifications? You register a query that it checks at some indeterminate interval. At the time I saw this as an obnoxious thing to code around in order to implement coditions; but is it possible that I should bring it up as a more machine-implementation-independent frontend for notification itself? 21:00:16 Modius: It might be worth bringing it up on the mailing list. I'm not inclined to think so, but I haven't done much with threads at all lately. 21:16:03 anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07258.melroma.wayport.net] has joined #ccl 21:28:49 -!- sellout [n=greg@guest-fw.dc4.itasoftware.com] has quit [] 21:30:10 milanj [n=milan@93.87.181.140] has joined #ccl 21:56:21 -!- jauaor [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [] 22:12:48 sellout [n=greg@c-24-128-50-176.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #ccl 22:54:51 -!- anRch [n=markmill@nmd.sbx07258.melroma.wayport.net] has quit [] 23:49:46 -!- milanj [n=milan@93.87.181.140] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]