CL Test

00:00:01 adeht: Oh yes, I forgot this sort of thing could be done 00:00:03 adeht: Much nicer to have a helper macro that you can RETURN out of 00:00:04 -!- xiackok [~Administr@94.54.81.99] has left #lisp 00:00:10 baggles: (- x -1) 00:00:32 baggles: err, (if (minusp x) (- x -1) x) 00:00:50 antifuchs: I'm not giving mine up for building the correct predicate version in other people's code. Screw them! They should get their own brain 00:00:58 drdo: first I would write the function.. then I'd consider a macro that expands to code calling it 00:01:08 adeht: yes, of course 00:01:13 I was suggesting we suggest our brains to determine the correct names for functions (: 00:01:18 baggles: if your number is negative it has already an inifinite number of ones, what more do you want to extend? 00:02:22 this is the thing, i'm going from all positive numbers and i want to interpret the nth bit as the sign, and extend that bit to become the sign 00:02:45 There are a lot of positive numbers in lisp... 00:02:45 seangrove [~user@173-126-161-92.pools.spcsdns.net] has joined #lisp 00:03:00 baggles: you cannot enumerate them all, there's not enough time in the universe for that. 00:03:10 as in, with 7 bits: 0->0, 1->1, 63->63, 64->-64, 65->-63 00:03:23 pjb: maybe in a singularity? 00:03:43 baggles: err, (if (logbitp (1- wordsize) x) (- x -1) x) 00:03:52 -!- HET2 [~diman@cpc1-cdif12-2-0-cust125.5-1.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 00:04:09 baggles: sure there is: what does sign extension do? it replicates the kth bit. An easy way to do that is to (logior x (- logand x (ash 1 k))). 00:04:33 (modulo a missing parenthesis pair) 00:04:38 adeht: My point was that you don't need the predicate for when to stop, the macro can just expand into a block 00:05:43 tirinim 00:05:54 drdo: that assumes the general case is to process all lines 00:05:59 baggles: notice that the 2-complement 2^word-size representation of -63 is not -63, since in lisp -63 has an infinite number of 1s. It would be (logand (1- (expt 2 wordsize)) -63) which is a positive number (eg 4294967233 when wordsize is 32). 00:06:02 drdo: unconditionally 00:06:06 hem, I'm a bit confused. After a DEFPACKAGE, must I specify IN-PACKAGE? 00:06:14 or is it implicit? 00:06:29 etenil: it's not implicit 00:06:31 that's it pkhuong! thanks! no ifs too :) 00:06:37 adeht: ok, thanks 00:06:39 baggles: said otherwise, 65 IS ALREADY the sign extended representation of -63 on 7 bit. 00:07:21 If only minion was still alive. It feels like I paste that one-liner at least once a month. 00:07:34 good night everyone! 00:07:36 minion! 00:07:39 -!- etenil [~user@93-96-0-153.zone4.bethere.co.uk] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 00:14:18 hello, I've taken some notes on learning lisp while i was doing it these past few months, and I've summarized some of them in a short blog post, if anyone cares to offer gentle criticism: http://pavelpenev.posterous.com/learning-lisp-the-bump-free-way 00:14:58 -!- iwillig [~iwillig@dyn-128-59-150-188.dyn.columbia.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:16:48 neoesque [~neoesque@210.59.147.232] has joined #lisp 00:19:36 k04n [~k04n@cpe-76-175-192-194.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #lisp 00:19:42 its addicting once you get used to it. ---> it's addictive once you get used to it. 00:20:27 -!- freiksenet [~freiksene@cs181130165.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:20:45 Its not just for AI. People have used it for many other stuff. ---> Its not just for AI. People have used it for a lot of other stuff too. 00:20:51 pavelludiq: That has been written about exhaustively 00:21:08 The community isnt nearly as blood thirsty as some people might portrait it. ---> yes it is :) 00:21:23 ahah, no its not, i've seen worse 00:21:26 :D 00:21:33 *antifuchs* lops off colinh's head, uses it as a wine goblet 00:21:51 questions? (-: 00:22:54 Now I'm headless AND legless :-( 00:23:10 i know its been written about before, if i don't get too lazy i will have a follow-up with more concrete advice, about other confusing things in lisp, as i encounter them 00:23:12 awww. 00:23:19 but one of lisps great advantages ---> but one of Lisp's great advantages 00:23:55 It took me longer than i expected to write it. even after proof reading it, i still missed a lot 00:24:00 thanks 00:24:03 i ---> I (come on!) 00:24:20 -!- mheld [~mheld@129.10.203.42] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:24:22 (setf *shame* t) 00:24:26 RaceCondition [~RaceCondi@82.131.61.203.cable.starman.ee] has joined #lisp 00:24:32 :-) 00:24:40 Hey Colonh what's with the ---> ? 00:24:52 Wait, you're not a bot, are you? :s 00:24:58 it means "replace with" 00:25:13 Ah, I get it. 00:25:16 does anyone know about a statistics library for CL? 00:25:18 Yes, but I'm programmed in Lisp, so you won't be able to tell for sure 00:25:46 pavelludiq: What do you mean when you are talking about nesting? 00:26:19 lisp syntax is heavily nested, most other languages avoid it 00:26:44 It is true that lisps collection ---> It is true that Lisp's collection 00:26:57 I read that, what do you mean with that? 00:27:08 By any means, dont let that scare you ---> By all means, dont let that scare you 00:27:16 colinh: Please, stop 00:27:38 colinh: i should really write a script to automate the search and replace with your ---> lines 00:27:52 okay. I was nearly finished. Should I have posted somewhere else? 00:28:17 drdo: for example from the zen of python: flat is better than nested 00:28:40 pavelludiq: come on 00:28:45 drdo: i suspect thats true for python because suppose you have a nested block and you want to unnest it 00:28:54 pavelludiq: I have no idea what the zen of python is 00:28:56 drdo: its harder than in lisp 00:29:16 pavelludiq: Can you provide an example? 00:29:26 drdo: its an official short description of what pyhton's philosophy is 00:29:36 Yes, i figured that 00:30:01 drdo: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ 00:30:10 -!- DarthShrine [~angus@pdpc/supporter/student/DarthShrine] has quit [Quit: DarthShrine] 00:30:11 But i don't understand what they mean with that "flat is better than nested" point 00:30:22 pavelludiq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catamorphism 00:30:47 sellout [~greg@gw3.tacwap.org] has joined #lisp 00:30:49 mheld [~mheld@129.10.186.230] has joined #lisp 00:31:00 pavelludiq: tell us about something valuable not dogmatic quotes of others. 00:31:19 v0|d: you are not the intended audience 00:31:27 pavelludiq: Again, can you provide an example of what you mean? 00:31:38 pavelludiq: read the page and try to understand. 00:31:54 pavelludiq: and then tell us more about nesting. 00:33:32 hargettp_ [~anonymous@96.237.123.194] has joined #lisp 00:33:40 drdo: in pyhon you generally prefer a list comprehension rather than a call to map with a lamda call in it, or a call to filter, with a call to map as an argument 00:34:38 What's a list comprehension? 00:35:40 drdo: it's like [1..10] for a list that goes from 1 to 10 00:35:51 drdo: at least that's what I remember 00:36:56 drdo: [x*x for x in [1,2, 3, 4] if x%2==0] instead of map(lambda x: x*x,filter(lambda x: x%2==0,[1,2,3,4])) 00:38:27 gonzojive [~red@c-71-198-7-84.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 00:40:10 Well, the first one is easier to read and more efficient, why wouldn't you prefer it? 00:40:16 What does that have to do with nesting? 00:41:19 xyxxyyy [~xyxu@58.41.3.207] has joined #lisp 00:42:12 Jubb [~ghost@129.21.87.244] has joined #lisp 00:42:51 drdo: the original point was that lisp is homoiconic, and while to an experienced lisper that provides great technical advantages, less experienced ones might be wondering why bother with such strange syntax 00:43:11 -!- colinh [~colin@e181066104.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:43:36 pavelludiq: You clearly talked about lisp being more "nested" and most other languages being more "flat" 00:43:40 colinh [~colin@e181071133.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #lisp 00:43:44 I still don't understand what you mean with that 00:44:44 drdo: lisp is explicitly expressed as a nested tree structure, while python is not 00:45:08 drdo: should i edit that part to make it clearer? 00:45:21 b 00:45:23 oops. 00:45:34 -!- seangrove [~user@173-126-161-92.pools.spcsdns.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 00:47:58 drdo: It's certainly my experience that Lisp code tends to be more deeply nested than my code in other languages. 00:48:28 Of course the flip side of that is Python doesn't just have textually flat code, it has very flat namespaces. 00:48:31 I.e. there's not LET. 00:48:35 s/not/no/ 00:49:22 I haven't programmed in other languages in a while 00:49:36 to illustrate, try indenting your lisp code with 8 spaces instead of 2 (for macros and LET and conditionals), and see where you end up (-: 00:49:51 antifuchs: Why would i do such madness? :P 00:50:27 But is that what you mean pavelludiq? LET's 2 spaces indentation versus 0 for python variable declaration? 00:50:50 syntax nazis, love them. 00:51:11 drdo: I think it's not just 2 > 0. It's (2 * N) > 0 00:52:14 murilasso [~murilasso@64.119.157.61] has joined #lisp 00:52:36 gigamonkey: In what context would that happen? Chaining LET's is not exactly common 00:53:19 But it's not just LETs. 00:53:29 drdo: (let () (when condition (let () ...))) 00:53:35 happens from time to time 00:53:53 or m-v-b nests 00:54:08 I think the underlying dynamic is that because in Lisp you can actually accurately delimit scopes, you do which leads to deeper nesting than in, say, Python where all the variables in a function share a scope. 00:54:12 -!- c-u-brick [~mcsontos@hotspot8.rywasoft.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:55:12 I thought pavelludiq just meant: (f a (ff b c (fff d e))) v. x = fff(d, e); y = ff(b, c, x); z = f(a, y); 00:55:43 And you get things like (sort foo (lambda (x) ...)) 00:55:51 drdo: you can't pass a python block as an argument, or have it in any position were an expression would be, so you generally can't nest arbitrary expressions 00:56:46 Is a python block the same as a CL block? 00:57:05 am anything with leading whitespace is a block in python 00:57:18 like in C, anything between {} is a block 00:57:35 Except that a Python block doesn't introduce a new lexical scope. 00:58:20 -!- rvirding [~chatzilla@h137n1c1o1034.bredband.skanova.com] has left #lisp 00:58:31 flash news! python introducted lexsecoped blocks, great news in 2020! 00:58:57 now coders can do what lispers do for 100 years. 00:59:06 DarthShrine [~angus@60-242-109-62.tpgi.com.au] has joined #lisp 00:59:06 -!- DarthShrine [~angus@60-242-109-62.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Changing host] 00:59:06 DarthShrine [~angus@pdpc/supporter/student/DarthShrine] has joined #lisp 00:59:12 -!- tcr [~tcr@cpc1-bour5-2-0-cust921.15-1.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 00:59:19 -!- colinh [~colin@e181071133.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Quit: colinh] 00:59:36 -!- hargettp_ [~anonymous@96.237.123.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:00:22 -!- superflit [~superflit@140.226.49.148] has quit [Quit: superflit] 01:01:19 skonek [~artur@178.73.63.81] has joined #lisp 01:01:23 Wow, python's indentation is scope idea is retarded 01:01:54 drdo: the original draft had a rant about that :) 01:02:40 if someday i'll get rich while using lisp, i'll tell everybody that i'was using piton, just to let them love me. 01:02:42 Was trying something in the python repl, then i realised why it didn't work 01:04:34 -!- _danb_ [~user@124-149-166-62.dyn.iinet.net.au] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 01:05:18 sykopomp` [~sykopomp@crlspr-24.233.190.221.myacc.net] has joined #lisp 01:05:28 jimrthy_ [~jimrthy@ip68-13-249-220.ok.ok.cox.net] has joined #lisp 01:05:33 -!- jimrthy_ is now known as jimrthy 01:06:08 hargettp_ [~anonymous@96.237.123.41] has joined #lisp 01:06:09 drdo: retarded is relative :) 01:06:33 It sure is 01:07:29 I just don't understand how that is valuable 01:07:40 -!- sykopomp [~sykopomp@unaffiliated/sykopomp] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 01:09:19 -!- mrSpec [~Spec@unaffiliated/mrspec] has quit [Quit: mrSpec] 01:09:23 -!- Blkt [~user@dynamic-adsl-78-13-251-76.clienti.tiscali.it] has quit [Quit: Error: do not makunbound t please!] 01:09:51 -!- hargettp_ [~anonymous@96.237.123.41] has quit [Client Quit] 01:10:10 Olathe [~Olathe@unaffiliated/olathe] has joined #lisp 01:10:55 huangho [~vitor@201-15-187-95.paemt700.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br] has joined #lisp 01:11:21 skalawag [~user@66-76-154-135.wtx.sta.suddenlink.net] has joined #lisp 01:11:25 -!- pankajm [~pankajm@202.3.77.219] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 01:11:48 -!- dfkjjkfd [~paulh@210-11-ftth.onsnetstudenten.nl] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 01:11:49 drdo: it's the same as C -- you just omit the {}s. 01:12:14 What I want to know is why something is advertised as the "World's Hardest Sudoku" when it has way more than the minimum number of givens. 01:13:29 it doesn't matter, just point your phone at it and google will solve it for you anyways. :) 01:14:03 google can solve my rubik cube? 01:14:12 is your rubik cube sudoku? 01:14:12 gigamonkey: Hardest depends a lot on how you solve it 01:14:45 drdo: Sure. Let's limit it to humans using their brains and maybe some scratch paper. 01:14:47 Being hard is all about leading the search down very long dead-end path's 01:14:50 google knows nothing about algebra. 01:15:05 gigamonkey: Oh you mean for humans 01:15:29 No Sudoku are particularly hard for computers. 01:15:34 -!- RaceCondition [~RaceCondi@82.131.61.203.cable.starman.ee] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep] 01:15:49 huangho_ [~vitor@189-30-53-195.paemt700.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br] has joined #lisp 01:16:55 gigamonkey: If you heuristic is fixed, i.e. you don't change it if you start going down a very long path, some sudoku's can take a long time 01:17:27 -!- huangho [~vitor@201-15-187-95.paemt700.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:17:35 -!- huangho_ is now known as huangho 01:17:52 sudoku is linear right? 01:18:09 what do you mean with linear? 01:18:12 RaceCondition [~RaceCondi@82.131.61.203.cable.starman.ee] has joined #lisp 01:18:29 i dont remember exactly 01:18:41 gigamonkey: Then again, i'm talking about improper sudokus, sudokus for humans are solvable with no search 01:18:51 how to play sudoku but if it depends on addition of rows/columns to a constant 01:18:54 it's linear. 01:19:15 pankajm [~pankajm@202.3.77.219] has joined #lisp 01:19:35 v0|d: what? 01:20:13 -!- dto1 is now known as dto 01:20:43 drdo: So I'm talking about the Arto Inkala 2010 puzzle that has 23 givens and is a proper Sudoku compared to the many tens of thousands of 17-given puzzles. 01:20:47 -!- mheld [~mheld@129.10.186.230] has quit [Quit: mheld] 01:20:59 Why would his be harder (for a human) than the 17-given puzzles? 01:21:11 (I'm open to the idea that there is some reason that I'm just not thinking of.) 01:21:12 drdo: every row has to have all numbers right? 01:21:17 I have no idea, i've never actually tried to solve a sudoku manually 01:21:19 it means they sum up to a constant. 01:21:35 drdo: I don't think it's true that all proper sudoku are solvable without search. 01:21:36 ie (reduce #' (list 1 2 .. 9)) 01:21:44 gigamonkey: I don't see how you would measure difficulty, i'm guessing not all people think the same way 01:21:45 I guess it depends on what constraint propagation rules you have. 01:21:49 usually in sudoku, the first few numbers are easy 01:21:50 ie (reduce #'+ (list 1 2 .. 9)) 01:22:56 gigamonkey: Yes, of course it does, when you solve with computers, it's better to have only the 2 basic propagation rules and search, it ends up being faster 01:23:15 But, you can solve every proper sudoku without searching 01:23:59 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3997/is_200803/ai_n25419897/ 01:24:12 non deterministic search is not a very good solution. 01:24:22 try groups actions using symmetric groups. 01:24:53 drdo: do you have a cite for that? 01:25:04 drdo: see it's very similar to my rubik cube. 01:25:07 gigamonkey: For the latter? 01:25:36 -!- skalawag [~user@66-76-154-135.wtx.sta.suddenlink.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:25:41 For the claim that every proper sudoku can be solved without search. 01:25:59 I believe you; I'm curious to read more. 01:26:07 gigamonkey: right because its linear. 01:26:16 It's not very hard to intuitively understand why 01:26:58 drdo: maybe not for you. ;-) 01:27:52 gigamonkey: I'm assuming a proper sudoku means it has a unique solution 01:28:12 Phooodus [~foo@68.107.217.139] has joined #lisp 01:28:13 drdo: yup. 01:30:29 If it has a unique solution, that means each empty square has a unique value, that can be derived from the existing ones 01:31:18 rpg [~rpg@216.243.156.16.real-time.com] has joined #lisp 01:31:21 -!- Phoodus [~foo@68.107.217.139] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:31:30 what derivation? 01:31:36 there is a set of numbers 01:31:43 and permutations that act on them 01:33:17 drdo: that doesn't sound right to me. 01:33:43 gigamonkey: Maybe i'm overlooking something, what are you thinking? 01:34:21 Well, I don't know how you make the leap from there is a unique solution to you can find it without search. 01:35:35 Which I take to mean, you have an algorithm that would let you pick a square and then pick the digit that goes in that square, repeating until all the squares are filled and the puzzle is solved without ever backtracking. 01:35:53 I'm not sure that's possible 01:36:14 can you count how many unique puzzles are there? 01:36:16 Well then what do you mean by "without searching"? 01:36:27 v0|d: I think that has been done. 01:36:28 When i say without searching, i mean that you never have to guess anything 01:36:31 I think even after constraint propagation you may end up with blank squares in a proper puzzle, so search is still needed 01:36:39 is it 9! for 3x3/ 01:36:40 ? 01:36:54 adeht: If that happens, you have an invalid puzzle 01:36:58 hm oh no it's more complicated than that. 01:37:04 (or you propagation rules are wrong) 01:37:06 *your 01:37:25 drdo: well, what propagation rules are you thinking of? 01:37:41 http://www.sadmansoftware.com/sudoku/solvingtechniques.htm 01:37:44 Here are a lot of them 01:38:03 But are you sure there's some set that will solve all proper Sudoku? 01:38:16 I.e. just by constraint propagation. 01:38:23 Or are you just assuming that? 01:38:41 I'm assuming that 01:38:55 I haven't fomally proved it, it just intuitively makes sense 01:39:39 Okay. I could believe it. But I wondered if you actually knew it was true. 01:40:22 Realise i'm not claiming i know what those rules are or even if anyone knows 01:40:32 I'm just saying that they exist 01:41:03 -!- Jubb [~ghost@129.21.87.244] has quit [Quit: Jubb] 01:41:11 you need to read some design theory book 01:41:22 instead of searching for herustics 01:41:54 v0|d: Show me your sudoku solver then 01:42:02 ive given you the link 01:42:14 give me a working program 01:42:21 drdo: you dont need. 01:42:29 you need pen/pencil 01:42:39 what are you talking about? 01:42:47 start with the generic sudoku, then transform it until it fits the problem 01:42:52 i'm talking about education. 01:43:00 especially theory. 01:43:12 -!- Yuuhi [benni@p5483A502.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 01:43:17 not some stupid herustics that works occasionally 01:43:33 You sound extremelly clueless 01:43:49 okay 01:43:56 count me how many pzzles are there? 01:43:57 v0|d: I don't understand you at all. 01:44:04 A Gazillion. Now what? 01:44:23 gigamonkey: combinatorics is all about counting 01:44:31 then partitioning the puzzles 01:44:36 -!- RaceCondition [~RaceCondi@82.131.61.203.cable.starman.ee] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep] 01:44:42 This is some good trolling 01:44:45 you can never attack all puzzles at once. 01:45:22 So you're saying, enumerate all solutions and then pick the one that matches your givens? Clearly that's dumb so that's not what you're saying. So what are you saying? 01:45:44 gigamonkey: first think all puzzles / all solutions 01:45:54 than permute one puzzle to the other 01:45:57 and see the relation 01:46:15 if one can be the other using linear combinations than you can classify puzzles 01:46:25 those linear operations are callaed permutations 01:46:40 acting on your set which is {1..9} for 3x3 case 01:47:08 Okay, any solver that starts with "enumerate all puzzles" is, shall we say, not practical. 01:47:36 no you dont need 01:47:58 for instance you can find several permutations when composed result in identity. 01:48:07 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-78-231-28.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:48:08 just like in the rubik case. 01:48:56 so you can build several operations to visit all puzzles in the parittion without visiting the others. 01:49:01 I don't understand at all what you are saying 01:49:04 otherwise you can be lost very easily. 01:50:04 does it make sense? 01:50:13 drdo: why dont you get a design theory book? 01:50:25 first chapter would tell you what i'm saying. 01:50:40 What does that have to do with sudoku solving? 01:50:53 its combinatorics not just sudoku. 01:51:29 -!- rpg [~rpg@216.243.156.16.real-time.com] has quit [Quit: rpg] 01:52:55 What makes you think i'm interested in that? 01:53:20 drdo: because you are *clueless* 01:54:03 v0|d: Ok, then show me your sudoku solver 01:55:17 -!- Joreji [~thomas@75-186.eduroam.RWTH-Aachen.DE] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 01:57:04 -!- gemelen [~shelta@shpd-95-53-178-15.vologda.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 02:01:36 -!- BrandLeeJones [~BrandLeeJ@84.114.246.246] has quit [Quit: BrandLeeJones] 02:02:55 -!- qsun [~qsun@66.220.3.138] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 02:06:09 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@catv-89-133-171-67.catv.broadband.hu] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 02:06:09 sohail [~Adium@unaffiliated/sohail] has joined #lisp 02:06:16 abhinav [~abhinav@122.172.17.90] has joined #lisp 02:06:22 qsun [~qsun@66.220.3.138] has joined #lisp 02:08:29 -!- _s1gma [~herpderp@77.107.164.131] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:09:28 -!- k04n [~k04n@cpe-76-175-192-194.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 02:12:15 gigamonkey: Python only has one namespace. 02:18:26 skalawag [~user@209.40.169.20] has joined #lisp 02:23:40 gko [~gko@111.82.100.22] has joined #lisp 02:23:48 Zhivago: what do you mean? It doesn't have any package/module or it's a lisp-1? 02:25:31 I think he means the latter 02:26:10 -!- jimrthy [~jimrthy@ip68-13-249-220.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:29:53 paul0`` [~user@189.26.129.89.dynamic.adsl.gvt.net.br] has joined #lisp 02:30:14 -!- rgrau [~user@62.Red-88-2-20.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:30:26 jimrthy [~jimrthy@ip68-13-249-220.ok.ok.cox.net] has joined #lisp 02:31:27 -!- paul0` [~user@189.114.203.189.dynamic.adsl.gvt.net.br] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:31:47 -!- bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has quit [Quit: night...] 02:33:46 rpg [~rpg@216.243.156.16.real-time.com] has joined #lisp 02:39:07 -!- ikki [~ikki@201.122.132.181] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:39:24 -!- skalawag [~user@209.40.169.20] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:41:22 pjb: I mean that it only has one namespace for names. 02:41:47 -!- alexsuraci [~alexsurac@pool-71-188-133-67.aubnin.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: alexsuraci] 02:41:49 pjb: e.g., foo can only refer to one thing -- be it a module, class, function, variable, ... 02:42:13 pjb: It also can't distinguish names produced by separate authors. 02:42:48 pjb: Actually, I think I was accidentally replying to a very old comment that gigamonkey made -- but I think that it's worthwhile understanding. 02:43:26 pjb: I'd also like to say that CL doesn't have separate namespaces for names, values, classes, etc -- it has separate value spaces for these things. 02:43:52 pjb: The namespaces that CL does have are provided only at the package level. 02:45:06 (Which is why I can't export a class name, for example) 02:46:18 Zhivago: Well, since names are reified in lisp, yes, you cannot export a 'whatever' name. 02:46:29 I can export a name, however. 02:46:36 Eg. you cannot export a block name, or a function name or a type name. 02:46:44 Yes, you can export symbols. 02:46:54 It just has various class, value, function, etc, values attached to it. 02:47:11 Adlai_ [~leif@ool-18bfe51c.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lisp 02:47:14 Right, but each one in its own namespace. 02:47:20 That's why I say that CL has multiple value spaces as well as multiple namespaces -- but most people get these confused. 02:47:30 No. They're all in the one namespace. 02:47:47 There's only one name for A:A 02:47:58 You just have multiple values associated with A:A. 02:48:10 The multiple namespaces come in with B:A and C:A. 02:48:15 A:A IS a name. 02:48:42 pjb: Yes, and it's unique, in the only namespace that exists 02:48:55 In the function name space, A:A can be bound to #, while at the same time, A:A can be bound in the lexical variable namespace to 42, and in the block namespace, to the block 12. 02:49:14 drdo: there are as many namespace as you care create in lisp. 02:49:34 pjb: You're confusing the difference between multiple names with the difference between multiple values. 02:49:46 And the fact that names are reified (they are symbols) allows the programmer to create new namespaces. 02:49:58 huh? 02:50:31 (with-schmilblick-named foo (do-something (schmilblick foo))) 02:50:37 pjb: It allows the programmer to create new value spaces. 02:50:55 -!- sykopomp` is now known as sykopomp 02:51:16 -!- sykopomp [~sykopomp@crlspr-24.233.190.221.myacc.net] has quit [Changing host] 02:51:16 sykopomp [~sykopomp@unaffiliated/sykopomp] has joined #lisp 02:51:18 So, my question is, do you mean that Python is a lisp-1, or that it does not have packages/modules? 02:52:08 What I mean is that python has one namespace and one value space. 02:52:24 So both. 02:52:41 pjb: no 02:52:56 The fact that it's a lisp-1 is acceptable. Not having packages/modules is unforgiveable. 02:53:31 -!- murilasso [~murilasso@64.119.157.61] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:53:52 what is the difference between (slime-setup) and (slime-setup '(slime-fancy)) ? 02:53:59 Well, what packages solves is the problem of separate authorship. 02:54:19 Having only a single value space means that you have semantic name collisions. 02:55:46 Having multiple namespaces in a more powerful sense than CL does would allow you to use a single value space more effectively -- if you had separate namespaces for classes, functions, values, etc. 02:56:03 Something along the lines of FOO:FUNCTION:BLAH 02:56:22 One can live with a lisp-1. Not without modularity. 02:56:44 Then you could export function blah separately to class blah. 02:57:05 Python has modularity, which is a separate issue. 02:57:46 A module is what maps a name to a value, here. 02:58:13 You can think of CL as having a fixed set of modules -- value, function, class, etc modules. 02:58:28 -!- Adlai_ [~leif@ool-18bfe51c.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:02:27 rmarianski [~rmariansk@mail.marianski.com] has joined #lisp 03:02:50 Ralith_ [~ralith@S010600221561996a.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #lisp 03:03:11 -!- jimrthy [~jimrthy@ip68-13-249-220.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 03:03:12 Zhivago: I'm not sure this refined scheme is worth the complexity.. I find that packages work well in practice and are simple to understand (despite messy debates of the past) 03:04:32 adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-254-159.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #lisp 03:04:33 -!- Ralith [~ralith@S010600221561996a.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:04:36 -!- Ralith_ is now known as Ralith 03:06:26 sellout- [~greg@c-24-61-13-161.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #lisp 03:07:24 -!- JuanDaugherty [~Ren@cpe-72-228-177-92.buffalo.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Exeunt IRC] 03:09:48 -!- sellout [~greg@gw3.tacwap.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:09:49 -!- sellout- is now known as sellout 03:15:23 -!- paul0`` [~user@189.26.129.89.dynamic.adsl.gvt.net.br] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 03:16:27 adeht: Well, packages provide the minimum required, but they don't provide support for two important things. 03:16:32 xinming_ [~hyy@115.221.2.172] has joined #lisp 03:16:53 sure, it could be useful for, say, package locks 03:16:56 adeht: One is semantic layering -- e.g., you could make a FOO_FUN and a FOO_VAR and a FOO_CLASS package. 03:17:22 -!- pizzledizzle [~pizdets@pool-96-250-215-244.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [] 03:17:39 adeht: But there's no support for that, so you'd end up needing to write FOO_FUN:BAR and FOO_VAR:BAR, since *package* isn't sufficiently expressive. 03:17:45 Zhivago: you'd have to then have a mechanism allowing you to define your own FOO_MYSPACE (heh) 03:18:15 adeht: Well, that would be trivial enough -- it just needs to operate at the level that string to symbol rewriting operates at. 03:18:39 adeht: And to bundle namespaces so that one *package* value can refer to a set. 03:19:19 -!- xinming [~hyy@115.221.11.165] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 03:19:32 hargettp_ [~anonymous@96.237.123.41] has joined #lisp 03:19:35 Zhivago: huh? I would think this requires that you be able to specify defining (sub?)forms and such 03:19:41 The other thing that packages don't support well is making collisions easy to avoid -- if two people separately use the same package name, you could easily fix the problem by remapping a package name for the loading of one person's files. 03:21:28 adeht: Well, take (function foo), for example -- there's no reason that your compiler couldn't rewrite that to BAR_FUN:FOO, effectively, in the appropriate contexts. 03:21:51 adeht: Compiler macros are sufficient for user extensions there, imho. 03:22:00 right.. but you need to specify the appropriate contexts 03:23:47 Well, I don't think that's a fundamental problem. 03:24:35 I don't think so either.. I just think it's too much buck for the bang 03:25:35 An alternative would be to support compound names. 03:31:55 Adlai_ [~leif@ool-18bfe51c.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lisp 03:32:38 for example, you don't need that granularity if you use % for "internal" names that might otherwise conflict with exported ones, ensure the set of imported symbols is known and fixed, etc. 03:33:09 -!- Ginei_Morioka [~irssi_log@78.114.144.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 03:34:19 (speaking from a practical viewpoint) 03:34:37 parkq [~parkq@209-6-20-163.c3-0.wrx-ubr3.sbo-wrx.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #lisp 03:34:57 Ginei_Morioka [~irssi_log@78.112.46.27] has joined #lisp 03:35:59 JuanDaugherty [~Ren@cpe-72-228-177-92.buffalo.res.rr.com] has joined #lisp 03:36:51 Zhivago: I was talking about the difference between global and per-function scope. 03:37:30 giga: Well, they have pretty much the same as lisp with respect to that, these days. 03:39:38 Zhivago: I don't think so because things like looping forms don't introduce new bindings. 03:39:57 So if you have s = something() and then later in the same function: for s in whatever(): ... 03:40:23 after the loop the value of s is whatever the last value of the loop variable was 03:40:38 Unless possibly that has changed in Python3? 03:40:39 Yeah, but they do if you use a form that introduces new bindings, like a function. 03:40:45 No, it's one of their "features". 03:41:01 Well, the *only* thing that introduces new bindings is a function. 03:41:15 Thus, there's the global scope and each function gets its own scope. 03:41:20 Or a lambda expression. 03:41:32 Yeah, and that's pretty much the same as lisp. 03:41:46 Lisp just introduces a lot of functions under the covers, effectively. 03:42:04 Well, it's all machine code in the end. 03:42:21 But that doesn't make every language the same. 03:42:26 gigamonkey: wow, are you serious? (about the loop not shadowing the s and instead modifying it) 03:42:38 drdo: indeed. It's horrific. 03:42:51 I've been bit by that several times in recent days. 03:42:56 drdo: Yeah, it's a feature. :) 03:43:10 Python is a conspiracy to cause people to choose stupid variable names. 03:43:32 gigamonkey: What do you find nice about python? 03:43:56 It looks like pseudo code. 03:44:13 I'm using it for a lot of example code for Code Quarterly articles. 03:44:14 I never understood that pseudo code thing 03:44:23 gigamonkey: provided that pseudocode is very serial and low-level 03:44:59 adeht: well, it's not that low-level. You can express a lot of stuff that's usually ancillary to what you actually want to talk about with list, set, and dictionary comprehensions. 03:45:40 gigamonkey: What are those comprehensions i keep hearing about? 03:46:04 I see it everywhere, and apparently they are going to cure cancer 03:46:21 drdo: dunno about that but they do let you express certain things quite concisely. 03:46:32 And they're well integrated into the language. 03:46:49 gigamonkey: I saw an example here earlier 03:47:08 But i didn't see how it was anything more than a loop subset 03:47:40 Tends to be more concise. For the things it's used for. 03:47:41 You mean things like [b for (a, b) in l if a > 10] 03:47:44 drdo: I just looked it up.. do people actually write x%2==0 inline? 03:47:56 Zhivago: yes. 03:48:10 One difference is that I think they can be generators. 03:48:20 drdo: don't they learn about abstractions? evenp? 03:48:21 Which loop can't handle. 03:48:31 adeht: Why are you talking to me? :P 03:49:44 gigamonkey: So that's it? (why python is nice) 03:50:08 Well, that's why I use it. And I'm using it for a very specific purpose. 03:50:17 those things are a few characters shorter than using iterate 03:50:20 adeht: i haven't touched python in over a year, so when i just wrote a quick line 03:50:22 and way more limited 03:50:39 Limitations are beneficial when they align idiomatically. 03:50:39 When I actually want to write code to experiment with stuff, especially if it needs to be fast, I use Lisp. 03:51:00 I'm just curious as to why people would use python 03:51:20 CL is way nicer in so many ways 03:51:29 But a variety of reasons, some historical, some not, I don't think Common Lisp would be a good choice as a demonstration language in something like Code Quarterly. 03:51:30 and there is no speed excuse 03:52:11 drdo: i used python to teach myself to program, its good for that 03:53:22 pavelludiq: I find scheme is extremelly nice to teach programming 03:53:23 skalawag [~user@c75-111-102-202.amrlcmta01.tx.dh.suddenlink.net] has joined #lisp 03:53:48 drdo: Well, it's all about the core idioms, imho. 03:54:00 drdo: What's the CL equivalent to { "a": "b" }? 03:54:12 I have no idea what that is 03:54:27 Is that a map? 03:54:31 Yes. 03:54:34 drdo: i remember when i was learning scheme and rewrote factorial into python and blew by stack, fun times :) 03:54:37 So, you don't know any python at all, and you're claiming that CL is way nicer? 03:54:43 one of the things I like in Lisp is that you can cherrypick the tokens and precise structure for the concepts you want to express 03:54:56 ("a" "b") 03:54:59 here's CL's equivalent 03:55:04 plist 03:55:27 drdo: So, how do you iterate each name, value pair? 03:56:00 (loop for (k v) in map) 03:56:09 by cddr 03:56:11 by #'ccdr 03:56:36 and on 03:56:44 drdo: Ok, so not only is your solution inefficient, it's also hideously ugly to do basic things with. 03:56:56 v0|d: you still here? 03:57:02 Zhivago: Is it? 03:57:03 Zhivago: but he can use that syntax to represent any mapping 03:57:08 Why is it inneficient? 03:57:14 adeht: eh? 03:57:14 for k, v in {"a": "b"}.items(): ... expresses that more idiomatically. 03:57:24 drdo: Let's say the mapping has 50,000 elements in it ... 03:57:37 Zhivago: Are you going to have a literal map with 50,000 elements? 03:57:38 drdo: Your shitty representation will be really expensive to look things up in. 03:57:51 gigamonkey: he can compute the efficient representation from ("a" "b") and have operators to deal with it conveniently 03:57:57 Also 03:58:05 It's not hard to have a { read-macro 03:58:17 It is, if you're just starting out. 03:58:21 to make whatever type of map representation you want 03:58:34 What CL gives you isn't a good language. It gives you tools upon which to build a good language. 03:58:49 For a neophyte, that's really bad. 03:58:56 Zhivago: right, and this is what I like about Lisp 03:59:12 The thing that matters the most about a language 03:59:16 And that's why python is a better choice for introductory programming. 03:59:26 Zhivago: but you forget that CL also provided lots of already existing facilities 03:59:36 *provides 03:59:37