00:00:48 btw, Riastradh . 00:00:50 Ill let you know here, 00:00:53 I intend to /use/ Side effects. 00:00:58 I'm not writing static stuff. 00:00:59 jonrafkind: didn't work under scheme48 00:01:04 For example, if, while editing a program, I exchange the order of two parameters to some procedure, and if Scheme guaranteed left-to-right argument evaluation, then it would be incorrect in general to transform calls such as (F (FOO) (BAR)) to (F (BAR) (FOO)), because they have significantly different meanings. 00:01:10 scheme48 sux0rz 00:01:33 Riastradh: I don't agree... 00:01:42 but you could try (number->string 1234 16) 00:01:50 Riastradh: They only have the same meaning currently because FOO and BAR don't use effects 00:01:51 soupdragon, if you disagree with my assertion, then you are wrong. I stated fact, not opinion. 00:01:57 Riastradh: It's not a fact 00:02:14 Well ok you are right they have the same meaning 00:02:25 but the meaning is Permutation(FOO,BAR) in both cases 00:02:29 soupdragon, the correct transformation is from (F (FOO) (BAR)) to (LET* ((X (FOO)) (Y (BAR))) (F Y X)). 00:02:50 elderK, yes, I know you intend to use side effects. That doesn't change that repeated evaluation of expressions, due to the use of macros, makes the program confusing and hard to follow. 00:03:12 well, how would you suggest I improve it? 00:03:20 Write the lambda itself, not using macors? 00:03:24 s/cors/cros/ 00:03:53 soupdragon, with the current unspecified evaluation order, (F (FOO) (BAR)) does not imply any particular sequence of effects. Hence it is correct to transform the expression into (F (BAR) (FOO)). 00:04:03 Riastradh: Normally in Scheme if FOO and BAR has effects, nobody would write (F (FOO) (BAR)) would they? 00:04:16 Riastradh: So it's fine to change F and then write (F (BAR) (FOO)) 00:04:24 No, soupdragon. It is very common in languages that guarantee a particular evaluation order to rely on it. Otherwise, why would you guarantee it? 00:04:45 -!- gfb [i=806405c6@gateway/web/freenode/x-b0ecc5c8d8352335] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 00:04:59 Riastradh: Btw, erm, I have something that... may or may not offend you, but, I think could help the information you are intended to get across, to hit home. 00:05:10 *intending 00:05:19 Not sure 00:05:27 asl? 00:05:39 asl? 00:05:45 -!- attila_lendvai [n=ati@apn-89-223-208-211.vodafone.hu] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 00:05:46 minion: what does ASL stand for? 00:05:47 Acromiothoracic Stertorously Lavation 00:05:50 Riastradh: in theory they have the same meaning, both evaluate any permutation and then apply it yes? -- in practice say I run it in chicken and FOO and BAR both print their own name, it'll actually print in an opposite order 00:06:12 close! 00:06:25 asl? => #f 00:06:36 Riastradh: because of this, people wouldn't write it with FOO and BAR having effects (unless the effects could commute) 00:06:48 attila_lendvai [n=ati@apn-89-223-190-171.vodafone.hu] has joined #scheme 00:06:58 isn't that right so far? 00:07:02 81, female, south pole. /me stfus. 00:07:13 soupdragon, the meaning of the expression (F (FOO) (BAR)) does not carry the implication of any particular order of evaluation in Scheme. This encourages us to explicate the desired order of effects using LET* or similar. 00:07:37 But if you impose a particular order of evaluation, then suddenly you add new meaning to (F (FOO) (BAR)) that may not have been intended, and that there is no way *not* to say. 00:08:03 m that's true 00:08:25 Is it really something worth expressing though? That you don't care which order these things get evaluated in 00:08:56 my standard asl answer is too much / too little / too far 00:09:07 Riastradh: Did you see my question earlier about shadowing of `...'? 00:09:11 -!- bweaver [n=user@75-148-111-133-Chattanooga.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 00:09:16 We already have a perfectly good way to say that this expression must be evaluated before that expression: LET*. We also have a reasonable way to say that the side effects of this expression and that expression commute, namely LET or ordinary procedure calls. (This is not as fine-grained as one might like; we can't express general partial orders, but it's better than nothing.) 00:09:19 The bonus of specifying evaluation order is that you can give new meaning to a scheme program using continuations 00:09:44 Absolutely, soupdragon, it is worth expressing independence of order, because that enables simpler transformations of programs; programs become easier to reason about. 00:10:26 chandler, how much earlier? After I replied initially? If so, no. 00:10:27 what about a case when (f (bar) (foo)) works in one implementation as desired and breaks in other? stupid programmer? 00:10:34 maybe I want a macro [F (FOO) (BAR)] that works just like the LET* 00:10:35 sladegen, yes, the program then has a bug. 00:10:55 soupdragon, well, you are welcome to write a macro L->R that applies a procedure to some arguments, evaluating the subexpressions in left-to-right order. 00:11:06 Riastradh: I missed your earlier reply, sorry. 00:11:10 Riastradh you really changed my mind on this.. somehow :) 00:11:38 Riastradh: I initially thought it was a scheme48 bug, until I couldn't find anything in R5RS to clarify what the behavior should be. 00:12:10 soupdragon: maybe you can translate? 00:12:17 :P Man, sometimes I feel so out of place here. 00:12:17 lol 00:12:42 elderK: translate what? 00:12:56 chandler, actually, I misspoke, now that I think about it. 00:13:18 nvm soupdragon . I'll just have to rered. 00:13:18 :) 00:13:26 chandler, there *is* (what I think would be considered) a bug in Scheme48, but its symptom is not what you described. 00:13:33 -!- rdd [n=user@c83-250-157-93.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 00:13:46 Consider (let-syntax ((foo (let ((... 5)) (syntax-rules [something involving ...])))) (foo [blah blah])). 00:13:56 That would exhibit the bug in Scheme48. 00:15:17 ~_~ Man, I need to find some more accessible resources on the more advanced side of Scheme. 00:15:28 *ponders* 00:15:37 in a way that a practical, self-taught guy would grok. 00:15:55 *elderK* rereads 00:16:04 how depressing. 00:16:06 How long ago did you start reading (seriously) about Scheme, elderK? 00:16:21 I've been reading about Scheme for interest for a few months now. 00:16:32 I haven't been coding in Scheme much, so I haven't got to apply much of what I've read. 00:16:33 If you've been working at understanding Scheme thoroughly for ten years, well, then I suppose you might have something to worry about. 00:16:39 but, I always read about things - abotu many languages, for interest. 00:16:53 I've been learning Scheme I guess, on and off for a couple months. 00:17:00 but it certainly hasn't been constant. 00:17:03 or focussed. 00:17:10 but after chandler pointed that out he quoted r5rs as saying that ... shouldn't be shadowed. and it's not in scheme48. am i missing something? 00:17:19 Just, making less progress I guess, than I feel I should be. 00:17:32 Riastradh: I'm not sure why that's a different case. What am I missing? 00:17:44 elderK: I think the stuff I was asking Riastradh about was pretty esoteric and not generally relevant 00:17:50 chandler, because the environments are totally different -- they're at different storeys of the syntactic tower. 00:17:58 They have no connection. 00:18:03 heh, sorry to bring my inferiority complex out here. 00:18:03 lol 00:18:04 :) 00:18:31 Riastradh: Perhaps I'm not quite following. Can you give a fully concrete example? 00:18:36 (let-syntax ((foo (let ((... 42)) (syntax-rules () ((_ a ...) (list a ...)))))) (foo 1 2 3)) returns '(1 2 3) 00:18:42 Still, I didn't know that I could group all parameters by just saying (lambda all-params body) 00:19:03 but, it makes sense really if you understsand the (lambda (man . opt) body) 00:19:05 form. 00:19:05 :) 00:19:05 chandler, sladegen's example works. That should be a syntax error, just as (LET ((ELSE 5)) (CASE 'FOO (ELSE 'FNORD))) is. 00:19:30 rudybot: eval (let-syntax ((foo (let ((... 42)) (syntax-rules () ((_ a ...) (list a ...)))))) (foo 1 2 3)) 00:19:31 sladegen: error: eval:1:80: foo: bad syntax in: (foo 1 2 3) 00:19:43 But if you move the (LET ((... 42)) ...) outside the LET-SYNTAX, so that it happens at the ground storey of the syntactic tower, there should be no error. 00:20:03 Can you point me to the language in R5RS that would indicate that it should be a syntax error? 00:20:34 -!- Fare [n=Fare@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has quit ["Leaving"] 00:20:38 The only language I've found that establishes hygiene for the ELSE in COND is at the beginning of 4.2: "The constructs in this section are hygienic, as discussed in section 4.3." 00:20:40 btw, guys, how expensive is it to use (let ...) ? 00:20:48 like, the way I see it, let is used for creating local variables? 00:20:51 Oh, well, in the R5RS, you can't put the LET on the right-hand side of the LET-SYNTAX bindings. 00:20:53 or, local bindings? 00:21:02 elderK, its expense should not concern you. 00:21:08 sweet. 00:21:09 It costs $0.02 per use, but there's a public fund. 00:21:44 I mean, (let ((a 0) (b 1)) ....) == ((lambda (a b) ...) 0 1) roughly, right? 00:21:47 switch to euro, let the cost go down. 00:21:57 Yes, elderK, exactly. 00:22:48 (let* ((a 0) (b a)) body) == (let ((a 0)) (let ((b a)) body)) ? 00:22:53 -!- attila_lendvai_ [n=ati@apn-89-223-230-139.vodafone.hu] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 00:23:34 yes 00:23:35 Disregarding what R5RS says for a moment, do you believe that (let ((... 42)) (let-syntax ((foo (syntax-rules () ((_ a ...) (list a ...))))) (foo 1 2 3))) should be a syntax error or not? 00:24:03 It should not be. 00:24:27 :) Riastradh, what would it be? 00:24:34 or is that targetted to chandler ? 00:24:37 to chandler, aye. 00:24:38 :) 00:24:42 Why? 00:24:43 elderK, yes, sorry. 00:24:45 Let me try again. 00:24:47 elderK, yes, that is correct. 00:24:51 chandler, no, it should not be a syntax error. 00:24:52 thanks, Riastradh . 00:25:00 For clarity's sake: 00:25:02 Riastradh: Why? 00:25:13 chandler, the binding of `...' does not occur in the environment in which the SYNTAX-RULES expression (in Scheme48, anyway, and also in PLT Scheme and others) is evaluated. 00:25:35 (However, in MIT Scheme, which has slightly different semantics for the right-hand sides of syntax definitions, it would be a syntax error.) 00:25:51 -!- segoe [i=3e164621@gateway/web/freenode/x-d57698bc16c6aec5] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] 00:27:53 -!- kuribas [i=kristof@d54C434F4.access.telenet.be] has quit ["ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs)"] 00:28:09 segoe [i=3e164621@gateway/web/freenode/x-570aaec631e6f49d] has joined #scheme 00:28:45 but bash conflicts with scheme 00:28:45 17:26 < the_unmaker> printf "%#x\n" "$((7*1024*1024*1024))" 00:28:45 17:26 < the_unmaker> 0x1c0000000 00:28:45 17:27 < the_unmaker> (number->string 7516192768 16) 00:28:46 17:27 < the_unmaker> 1x0000000 00:29:05 why does scheme48 not give me the 0x part 00:29:31 *Riastradh* blinks. 00:29:36 > (number->string 7516192768 16) 00:29:36 "1c0000000" 00:29:50 aagh sorry you are right 00:30:08 but the bash thing puts 0x in front of the 1c0000000 00:30:10 Scheme48 doesn't prefix 0x to the string because it's not supposed to. 00:30:20 is 0x not part of the hex number? 00:30:42 Neither does bash (or, to be precise, the standard printf utility) if you use `%x' rather than `%#x'. 00:30:56 I am not quite used to hex and for some reason oracle configs on soalris ar ein hex 00:31:00 What is a `hex number'? 00:31:02 I am not so sure they ahve to be though 00:31:02 Is it like a hex wrench? 00:31:10 base 16 00:31:23 Maybe you mean `the hexadecimal representation of a number'. 00:31:34 and I tried an online hex converter and it gave me some thing liek 3430303030303030 00:31:39 yes!! 00:31:40 `0x' is merely a common way to indicate `what follows is the hexadecimal representation of a number'. 00:31:47 oh really 00:32:00 Can you explain what `hexadecimal representation' means? 00:32:19 Riastradh: OK. I understand the argument here, though now I'm a bit confused as to why PLT exhibits the behavior it does in this case. 00:32:22 a representation of a number in base 16? using more than 0-9? 00:32:40 For example, how does one interpret the text `123abc' as a number using the hexadecimal representation? 00:32:50 no idea 00:33:00 So what does `base 16' mean, then? 00:33:00 might not be able 00:33:24 -!- gnomon [n=gnomon@CPE001d60dffa5c-CM000f9f776f96.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 00:33:33 well each column counts from 0-15 rather than 0-9 00:33:35 gnomon [n=gnomon@CPE001d60dffa5c-CM000f9f776f96.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 00:33:42 I think 00:33:44 I suggest that you get out a pencil and paper, and find, by Google, perhaps, or in your favourite local library, an explanation of numeral systems. 00:33:50 -!- joast [n=rick@76.178.184.231] has quit [Connection timed out] 00:34:14 I was trying to find a converter online and got very weird results so I tried to use scheme to be my converter 00:35:46 -!- athos [n=philipp@92.250.250.68] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 00:35:50 joast [n=rick@76.178.184.231] has joined #scheme 00:37:04 annodomini [n=lambda@c-75-69-96-104.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 00:38:28 -!- mmc [n=mima@cs162149.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 00:38:50 the root solution for me is that the /etc/system parameters to define shared memory for oracle do not need to be in hex as some lunatic here at work put them 00:39:12 thus my pain poof goes away 00:39:20 *Riastradh* coughs. 00:39:23 scheme is quite handy calculator 00:39:55 Honestly, I think you should get out a pencil and paper as I suggested and work out the meaning of hexadecimal representations of numbers. 00:39:57 I should try to get the hand of file and directory input out sometime 00:40:07 ok I will go now 00:40:14 I understand base 2 8 and 10 00:40:25 RageOfThou [n=RageOfTh@89.146.185.76] has joined #scheme 00:40:33 hex just throws me because after 10 you get a b c d e 00:40:36 etc 00:40:39 kinda weird for me 00:40:46 lol 00:41:02 Sigh. 00:41:07 0xA = 10 00:42:00 chandler, I think PLT Scheme has a bug, then. 00:42:19 didn't you hear eli, "PLT is right" 00:43:01 Always, I'm sure. 00:48:53 -!- melgray [n=melgray@70.99.250.82] has quit [] 00:50:21 Hmph. I can't put a library definition as the same file as another library definition, or a top-level program? 00:50:32 "library: allowed only in as a top-level module by itself" 00:55:02 -!- nun0 [n=pierre@69.172.71.220] has quit ["Leaving."] 00:55:21 rudybot: eval (define (dec->hex n) (cond ((number? n) (string-append "0x" (number->string n 16))) ((string? n) (dec->hex (string->number n 10))) (else (cons "Error: not a number." n)))) (dec->hex 7516192768) (dec->hex "7516192768") 00:55:22 sladegen: ; Value: "0x1c0000000" 00:57:21 the_unmaker: btw http://schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-9.html#%_sec_6.2.4 00:57:23 -rudybot:#scheme- http://tinyurl.com/3tmrwx 00:57:38 dudleyf [n=dudleyf@ip70-178-212-238.ks.ks.cox.net] has joined #scheme 00:57:56 Argh. Why doesn't Mac OS X support null mounts? 00:58:03 Riastradh: Could you clarify how you understand LET-SYNTAX should scope its right hand sides? 00:58:16 -!- MrFahrenheit [n=RageOfTh@SE400.PPPoE-6850.sa.bih.net.ba] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 00:59:43 attila_lendvai_ [n=ati@catv-89-132-189-132.catv.broadband.hu] has joined #scheme 00:59:56 cuz mac is for sissies 01:00:00 real men use netbsd 01:00:04 -!- attila_lendvai [n=ati@apn-89-223-190-171.vodafone.hu] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 01:00:53 Incidentally, I want to use null mounts in Mac OS X for the purpose of updating a NetBSD installation on another machine... 01:01:24 -!- sepult [n=user@xdsl-87-78-25-27.netcologne.de] has quit ["ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)"] 01:01:44 I can patially see why you would expect no syntax error, but I can also almost see why you should get one. I believe I am missing the subtleties of the discussion here. 01:01:53 dysinger [n=tim@71.20.231.3] has joined #scheme 01:02:03 I don't think you are, because I'm still not sure on this point myself. 01:03:50 chandler: Well, as I understand it, LET-SYNTAX is a splicing form, which means at least that the body forms will be considered as within the scope of the surrounding LET form, but my manual isn't clear about the scoping of the right-hand side expressions. 01:04:28 I'm trying to understand Chez's interpretation of this code, by the way: 01:04:44 Yes, it's the right hand side that matters here :-) 01:05:37 arcfide pasted "Chez's Behavior" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/82472 01:06:11 -!- foof [n=user@dn157-046.naist.jp] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 01:06:45 (let () (meta define ... 7) (let-syntax ([a (identifier-syntax ...)]) a)) => identifier out of context. 01:07:32 Consider this: 01:07:53 (let ((x (syntax-rules [somethingorother]))) (let-syntax ((foo x)) (foo [whatever]))) 01:07:57 Does that make any sense? 01:08:29 No, of course not. 01:08:42 Initially, I don't think I would have seen anything wrong with it. 01:08:44 So why should a binding of ... affect the right-hand side of the LET-SYNTAX? 01:09:00 The environments of each storey of the syntactic tower are completely disjoint. 01:10:24 Hrm, right, trying the above code, if it captures the ... rebinding, I would have expected it to capture the X, but it doesn't see the X. 01:11:57 -!- the_unmaker [n=g@w005.z209031033.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 01:12:47 Weird. 01:15:02 Riastradh: If the issue is being able to shadow `...' in PLT, then this it is only sensible to have an occurrence of `...' in a *pattern* be at the same phase as the code that the macro works on. 01:15:16 soupdragon: Please stop flaming. 01:15:25 fuck of 01:16:00 soupdragon: good, good. Let it go. Show everyone how un-trollish you are. 01:16:07 soupdragon: Please do not respond rudely like that. 01:17:08 chandler: Can you tell eli to stop screwing with me? 01:17:11 chandler: re "At least not about the REPL. It makes total sense in the context of file compilation." -- one of the major point of the PLT module system is that there is no difference between compiled code and uncompiled code. (The REPL has issues, of course, but that's unavoidable.) 01:17:41 eli: Paste the exact message which is a 'flame' 01:18:03 I should have said "file loading" there, as I was trying to a draw a contrast to the REPL. 01:18:19 of might feel offended. 01:18:20 chandler: He's calling me names and telling me off for stuff I don't do -- I can tell he's going to keep this up 01:18:47 Sigh. 01:18:55 If I asked everyone to be polite, could we all agree to that? 01:19:10 yeah I'd like it if eli stops this 01:19:18 I got a feeling he's got a plan though 01:19:25 No, he doesn't. 01:19:38 His plan is to discuss the algorithmic language Scheme in #scheme, and it's a good one. 01:20:18 chandler: And chandler re the "does it (drscheme) always think that #!r6rs is important enough" -- yes, it's always showing showing the `#lang' line since it's important as it determines the language of the buffer, and `#!' is equivalent to `#lang'. 01:20:56 I just thought it a bit curious that it was pinned to the top of the view. That wasn't a judgemental comment. :-) 01:21:15 Perhaps you can help me understand how to use R6RS libraries with PLT, assuming I know nothing about the PLT module system. 01:21:40 rudybot: later tell Fare: you can do a very similar kind of loop using `for/*', usually `for/fold' is a generalized tool. But you might as well go with a named `let'. 01:21:40 minion: memo for Fare:: eli told me to tell you: you can do a very similar kind of loop using `for/*', usually `for/fold' is a generalized tool. But you might as well go with a named `let'. 01:21:41 Remembered. I'll tell Fare: when he/she/it next speaks. 01:22:25 rudybot: later tell Fare: Actually, I'd just fix the number of arguments for the process... (Path names are still limited at the OS level, I think...) 01:22:25 minion: memo for Fare:: eli told me to tell you: Actually, I'd just fix the number of arguments for the process... (Path names are still limited at the OS level, I think...) 01:22:26 Remembered. I'll tell Fare: when he/she/it next speaks. 01:22:43 chandler: Are you referring to the splicing issue? 01:23:38 I have a R6RS library and a R6RS top-level program. The library is named (my-syntax). I initially tried putting them both in the same file, but I received an error: 01:23:54 "library: allowed only in as a top-level module by itself" 01:24:08 You can't put multiple libraries in the same file. 01:24:22 (in R6RS, that is.) 01:24:24 So, I put the library in a file 'my-syntax.sls', and the top-level program in a file 'my-user.ss' 01:24:38 I was searching for the source of that restriction in R6RS, but I didn't find it. 01:24:53 The files are in the same directory. 01:25:12 Per the manual, I'm using the ++path option to tell PLT where to find the library file: 01:25:15 plt-r6rs ++path ./ my-user.ss 01:25:19 But, it still can't find it. 01:25:32 copumpkin [n=pumpkin@c-24-63-67-154.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 01:25:46 Did you try with just `.'? 01:25:57 can i also use that minion memo thing? 01:26:32 -!- Nshag [i=user@Mix-Orleans-106-4-106.w193-248.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit ["Quitte"] 01:26:56 my-user.ss:3:13: import: cannot find suitable library installed (exception: collection-path: collection not found: "my-syntax" in any of: (# # #)) at: (my-syntax) in: (import (for (my-syntax) expand) (rnrs base 6)) 01:27:15 -!- attila_lendvai_ [n=ati@catv-89-132-189-132.catv.broadband.hu] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 01:27:57 chandler: It might need to be in a subdirectory or something. 01:28:18 I really don't have much experience with that, but if you paste the files somewhere I'll try to see if I can make it work. 01:28:37 saccade_ [n=saccade@65-78-24-131.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 01:29:11 chandler pasted "my-syntax.sls" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/82475 01:29:20 -!- jonrafkind [n=jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] 01:29:23 chandler annotated #82475 "my-user.ss" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/82475#1 01:29:40 (the files are just a test of phases I was plonking together; ignore the contents.) 01:31:56 And indeed, (rnrs base 6) should be (rnrs base (6)) in my-user.ss, but that doesn't fix the issue. 01:32:05 eli pm please 01:33:36 chandler: I put them in a directory, went up a level, used `++path .', and prefixed the `import' spec with that directory name. 01:33:49 And that gives me "X/my-user.ss:8:4: z: bad syntax in: (z lit a)" 01:33:57 eli: Can you share some light on the behavior of the LET and LET-SYNTAX stuff above? 01:34:08 eli: Thank you. 01:34:26 arcfide: Just a second, I'm trying to figure out what chandler is doing... 01:34:34 eli: Take your time. 01:35:51 chandler: (define lit) --? 01:36:54 I'm not sure how literals and modules work together yet. I was thinking that I needed to export the literal too. 01:37:41 chandler: Well, that `define' form is still flawed... Did you mean to define it to some random value? 01:37:46 Oh, yes. 01:38:22 I must have forgotten to put something there. This was something I was trying to put together when I ran into a brick wall with library paths, so don't read too much into what's there. 01:38:24 Then something is weird, I'm not getting a syntax error for some reason. 01:38:48 Seems like a bug! 01:39:51 Riastradh: Would you consider a 'parser:single-bracketed' parser (where the left and right brackets are the same) useful for parscheme? 01:40:30 -!- blackened` [n=blackene@ip-89-102-28-224.karneval.cz] has quit [] 01:40:51 chandler: Yes, looks like just (define x) works, and binds `x' to `void'. 01:41:28 Yes, it does. I didn't care about the value, and I didn't remember if one was required. 01:41:33 I was just fussing about with module export forms. 01:41:46 chandler pasted "why isn't the binding of `...' captured in a syntax-case macro?" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/82476 01:43:14 Whoops. It is, and I messed up the macro call. 01:44:26 chandler: I just got to "my-user.ss", and it looks weird. 01:44:58 First, (let-syntax ((z foo)) ...) wouldn't work right, since `foo' is not bound normally at the syntax level. 01:45:05 -!- mrsolo [n=mrsolo@nat/yahoo/x-890406b40a0dfc8f] has quit ["Leaving"] 01:45:26 The `foo' identifier is basically associated with a transformer function that lives at the syntax level. 01:46:07 How would I bind it normally? 01:46:28 chandler: Second, you're using `lit' at the runtime phase, so it's unrelated to the one from "my-syntax.ss", since that one is imported into the syntax phase. 01:46:57 But the broken `let-syntax' obscures what you're trying to do. 01:47:02 Ignore `lit' for the moment. 01:47:11 If you don't mind PLT syntax, I can probably explain things much better. 01:47:38 -!- cky [n=cky@cpe-024-211-249-162.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 01:47:39 48 hours being awake and obscure r6rs syntax don't sit well for me. 01:47:46 Why did defining foo normally in the my-syntax library not bind it normally at the syntax level in my-user.ss? 01:48:37 Ah, I missed that. I take 3/4 of what I said back. 01:49:44 cky [n=cky@cpe-024-211-249-162.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 01:51:29 OK. I think I'm sufficiently tired that I can't understand what I'm trying to do either. 01:52:04 chandler pasted "my-library.sls" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/82477 01:52:11 chandler annotated #82477 "my-user.ss" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/82477#1 01:52:23 test-phase-hygiene/my-syntax.sls:12:11: compile: unbound identifier (and no #%app syntax transformer is bound) at: list in: (list (quote a)) 01:52:34 chandler: Matthew replied and pointed at the r6rs `define' -- apparently, (define ) is a valid r6rs form. 01:52:57 Yes, I found that. Ignore that for the moment. I'm confused about something new, now :-) 01:53:22 chandler: Re what you're trying to do in general, let me try to summarize some things, if you're also semi-zombie. 01:54:34 The thing is that the pattern of a macro is something that is matched against code that lives in the runtime phase, not code from the syntax phase. 01:54:42 -!- RageOfThou [n=RageOfTh@89.146.185.76] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 01:55:03 Because of that, the `lit' definition in "my-syntax.ss" is not the same binding as the one used for a keyword. 01:55:36 How that interacts with the rest of the r6rs semantics is something I don't know. 01:55:43 Right, I understand that now. 01:55:46 foof [n=user@dn157-046.naist.jp] has joined #scheme 01:56:08 Can you look at my most recent paste and tell me why I'm getting an error about unbound 'list'? 01:56:34 `list'?? 01:56:38 Yes. 01:56:55 http://paste.lisp.org/display/82477 01:56:59 test-phase-hygiene/my-syntax.sls:13:11: compile: unbound identifier (and no #%app syntax transformer is bound) at: list in: (list (quote a)) 01:57:01 *arcfide* grabs some dinner. 01:57:33 (list (quote a)) is the expansion of `foo'. 01:59:09 That's a toplevel thing, I didn't even try it. 01:59:20 -!- kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-107-56-85.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 02:00:04 OK. I think I will come at this with a fresh eye tomorrow. 02:00:36 OK. 02:00:55 *chandler* is still very confused as to why the binding of `list' vanished. 02:01:09 kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-107-56-85.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 02:01:20 gfb [i=ad22383a@gateway/web/freenode/x-3167439e6e594b40] has joined #scheme 02:01:21 (arcfide: I assume that this was also what you asked about...) 02:01:45 chandler: That one is easy. 02:02:33 chandler: What happens is that you usually write code that looks like this: (define-syntax foo (lambda (stx) (syntax-case stx () [(...A...) ...B...]))) 02:02:52 In this case, the whole `lambda' expression lives at the syntax level. 02:03:22 The `...A...' pattern lives at the runtime level ("lives" in the sense of the identifiers it matches). 02:04:06 And finally, `...B...' is back at the syntax level, but it can be (syntax ...C...) which will make `...C...' be in the runtime level again. 02:04:21 chandler: Is all of this jumping clear? 02:05:32 -!- z0d [n=z0d@unaffiliated/z0d] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 02:06:24 kilimanjaro [n=kilimanj@70.116.95.163] has joined #scheme 02:08:16 eli: No, because I'm lost as to how it interacts with library phases. The form #'(list 'a ...) is at *whose* runtime level in the library my-syntax? 02:09:30 z0d [n=z0d@unaffiliated/z0d] has joined #scheme 02:10:00 chandler: What I'm trying to explain is that in a typical macro there is interleaving of code that lives at runtime and code that lives at syntax time. `define-syntax' is a runtime binding, but its RHS is a syntax-time form, etc. 02:10:30 A `syntax' form *lowers* it's contents -- usually from a syntax-time code into the runtime code. 02:10:53 Probably an easier example is: (define-syntax foo (lambda (stx) (syntax bar))) 02:11:15 `foo' is now a macro that always expands to `bar'. 02:11:31 -!- gfb [i=ad22383a@gateway/web/freenode/x-3167439e6e594b40] has quit [verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net] 02:11:31 -!- segoe [i=3e164621@gateway/web/freenode/x-570aaec631e6f49d] has quit [verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net] 02:11:33 So `bar' is something that is at the runtime level. 02:12:11 The code of the macro lives at syntax time, but the `syntax' form is what "lowers" the `bar' into runtime. 02:12:24 Is that better? 02:13:52 I understand what you're saying, but it's not helping me understand the behavior of my example. 02:14:15 It's related. 02:14:34 So, the bottom line is that this simple (define-syntax foo (lambda (stx) (syntax bar))) definition makes sense. 02:14:55 Now what you're trying to do is define the macro expander function in a library, as a plain definition, 02:15:17 you do that by simply switching `define-syntax' into `define': (define foo (lambda (stx) (syntax bar))) 02:15:22 In the library my-syntax, foo is defined at the runtime level. At what level do patterns and syntax forms in foo reside? 02:15:47 This means that the `lambda' expression is no longer at the syntax level, it is a simple runtime expression. 02:16:13 (Just let me go on with this example a little longer.) 02:17:30 Besides that, the other jump -- the one from `syntax' -- is still there. Except that now instead of jumping down from syntax time to runtime (phase 1 to phase 0), it is jumping from the runtime to the next level down -- you're jumping from phase 0 to phase -1. 02:18:23 "Obviously", phase -1 is not usually populated, so that `bar' will normally not refer to anything. 02:18:50 Specifically, if you use `list', then that's a referene to `list' at phase -1, which is unbound -- and that's how your `list' disappeared. 02:19:29 Oh! For some reason I had gotten it into my head that phases were nonnegative. 02:19:30 In r6rs jargon you'd fix that by importing rnrs or whatever with (for ... (meta -1)). (At least I think that I remember it this way.) 02:19:44 Yes, that's it. 02:19:46 No, they can be negative and that's very confusing... 02:20:17 In fact, in PLT, this kind of import is called `for-template' because it applies to templates that are used in runtime code. 02:20:21 It isn't; on the contrary, thinking that they were nonnegative confused me. 02:20:55 (The funny thing is that the "template" name confused me completely when I first saw it, I feel much more comfortable with the integers and the known points where the code switches from N to N+1 or N-1). 02:21:05 Anyway, this is a sure sign that sleep will improve my thinking. 02:22:17 Thank you for your help. 02:23:08 -!- fishey [n=fisheyss@ool-4573344b.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 02:23:16 lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has joined #scheme 02:23:54 fishey [n=fisheyss@ool-4573344b.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #scheme 02:25:59 I will pester you more tomorrow about the capture of `...'. To me it seems to come down to a question of whether ... is a literal in the pattern syntax (in which case it exists in a different phase from the surrounding runtime lexical bindings) or a special part of the pattern, existing at the runtime level. 02:26:31 I suspect that this is the source of the difference between scheme48 and plt. 02:31:21 "For the libraries defined in the library report, the export level is 0 for nearly all bindings. The exceptions are, from are syntax-rules, identifier-syntax, ..., and _ from the the (rnrs base (6)) library, which are exported with level 1..." 02:32:23 If ... is exported at level 1, a binding at level 0 should not affect its meaning in patterns, should it? 02:32:44 jonrafkind [n=jon@98.202.86.149] has joined #scheme 02:46:44 -!- lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has quit ["leaving"] 02:46:45 johnnowak [n=johnnowa@207-38-171-48.c3-0.wsd-ubr1.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 02:47:30 -!- cky [n=cky@cpe-024-211-249-162.nc.res.rr.com] has quit ["Upgrading kernel"] 02:48:40 -!- saccade_ [n=saccade@65-78-24-131.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit ["This computer has gone to sleep"] 02:49:32 saccade_ [n=saccade@65-78-24-131.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 02:50:19 -!- joast [n=rick@76.178.184.231] has quit [Connection timed out] 02:52:09 cky [n=cky@cpe-024-211-249-162.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 02:53:03 tjafk2 [n=timj@e176222060.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 02:55:41 chandler: weird, in plt it has level 0. I'll ask. 02:56:15 chandler: What's the reference to the `...' thing? 02:57:42 -!- felipe [n=felipe@my.nada.kth.se] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 02:59:57 eli: R6RS, section 7.2 03:00:48 eno_ [n=eno@adsl-70-137-131-139.dsl.snfc21.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 03:00:55 chandler: No, I meant your code. But no problem I found it. 03:01:39 joast [n=rick@76.178.184.231] has joined #scheme 03:02:45 -!- eno [n=eno@nslu2-linux/eno] has quit [Nick collision from services.] 03:02:52 -!- eno_ is now known as eno 03:08:55 -!- tjafk1 [n=timj@e176214201.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:09:11 -!- johnnowak [n=johnnowa@207-38-171-48.c3-0.wsd-ubr1.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com] has quit [] 03:17:38 -!- forcer [n=forcer@c194248.adsl.hansenet.de] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:19:40 scidan [n=dan@c-69-250-212-245.hsd1.dc.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:20:21 -!- scidan [n=dan@c-69-250-212-245.hsd1.dc.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] 03:23:04 -!- luz [n=davids@189.122.121.232] has quit ["Client exiting"] 03:33:38 -!- soupdragon [n=f@amcant.demon.co.uk] has quit ["Leaving"] 03:37:47 leppie [n=lolcow@196-210-177-69-wblv-esr-3.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 03:45:15 -!- kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-107-56-85.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:47:19 -!- pbusser2 [n=peter@ip138-238-174-82.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:52:03 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@195.91.224.225] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 03:53:03 -!- joast [n=rick@76.178.184.231] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 03:53:19 lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has joined #scheme 03:54:09 as my scheme project gets larger, 6000LOC, and i play more with haskell; i'm really starting to feel that having types is a _good_ thing for keeping project manageable. have others felt this way? if so, how did you resolve it in scheme, perferably with macros 03:54:53 joast [n=rick@76.178.184.231] has joined #scheme 03:55:02 *Elly* resolves that by using typed languages for large projects :P 03:55:43 how do you bring types into scheme? 03:56:06 well, there is typed scheme 03:56:10 records or statiic typing? 03:56:12 it's a PLT extension I think 03:56:19 haskell like typing 03:56:51 lowlycoder: I find it's a tradeoff. No type declarations has the advantage of letting you prototype faster, and more importantly makes refactoring and changing types easier, at the expense of some shallow bugs that are quickly caught by a unit test suite which covers all code branches. 03:57:14 I wrote more than a thousand lines of C today I think 03:57:23 In theory, Haskell doesn't require type declarations. In practice, it always does. 03:57:36 foof: agreed on the prototypig stage; it's actually the refactoring stage where I feel types is good; because it sets up this boundry; maybe i'm just bad at encapsulation 03:58:52 What I want is a system that doesn't require type declarations, but will detect and warn about type mismatches at compile time. 03:59:31 that's aabout it for me too; "if you see an error, I prefer to get it at load time, rather than when you're running with an exeption of "hey, you're trying to take the car of a point3d record" 03:59:50 scheme-complete has caught a number of bugs for me at edit-time with its type inference. The latest Chicken now provides type-inference-based warnings. But there's a long way to go. 04:00:11 scheme-complete.el ? 04:00:23 yes 04:00:42 a type checker in emacs, the horro 04:01:03 i'd like to roll out something involving macros 04:01:27 that seems almost the perfect level of abstraction -- code expansion time -- right before it's compiled/interpreted 04:01:43 sciendan [n=dan@c-69-250-212-245.hsd1.dc.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 04:08:50 -!- lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has quit ["leaving"] 04:18:51 -!- synthase [n=synthase@adsl-220-183-171.mob.bellsouth.net] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 04:23:06 synthase [n=synthase@adsl-146-212-140.mob.bellsouth.net] has joined #scheme 04:25:11 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@213.171.48.239] has joined #scheme 04:28:29 dysinger_ [n=tim@71.20.231.3] has joined #scheme 04:37:48 -!- annodomini [n=lambda@wikipedia/lambda] has quit [] 04:44:58 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)] 04:45:22 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 04:48:58 Poeir [n=Poeir@c-98-222-133-165.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 04:50:07 -!- dysinger [n=tim@71.20.231.3] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 04:52:59 -!- Arelius [n=indy@64.174.9.113] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 04:54:13 -!- Adamant [n=Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [] 04:54:39 Poeir_ [n=Poeir@c-98-222-133-165.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 04:55:30 -!- Poeir [n=Poeir@c-98-222-133-165.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 05:04:41 kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-107-56-85.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 05:12:07 -!- SharkBra1n [n=gerard@210.48.104.34] has quit ["leaving"] 05:20:10 segoe [n=segoe@201.Red-79-155-84.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 05:20:21 hi 05:20:30 yeah, yeah. 05:22:23 eli: are you still awake? 05:23:59 ikaros [n=ikaros@g226150163.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 05:27:01 eno_ [n=eno@adsl-70-137-139-149.dsl.snfc21.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 05:28:09 pbusser2 [n=peter@ip138-238-174-82.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has joined #scheme 05:34:17 -!- ASau [n=user@193.138.70.52] has quit ["off"] 05:35:20 xwl [n=user@a91-155-188-169.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 05:39:00 -!- eno [n=eno@nslu2-linux/eno] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 05:48:26 peter_12 [n=peter_12@S010600119506b129.gv.shawcable.net] has joined #scheme 05:54:58 _ender [n=user@c-76-126-245-211.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:55:31 -!- peter_12 [n=peter_12@S010600119506b129.gv.shawcable.net] has quit [] 06:02:42 -!- arcfide [n=arcfide@h-69-3-100-36.chcgilgm.dynamic.covad.net] has left #scheme 06:03:16 MrFahrenheit [n=RageOfTh@SE400.PPPoE-5903.sa.bih.net.ba] has joined #scheme 06:05:54 peter_12 [n=peter_12@S010600119506b129.gv.shawcable.net] has joined #scheme 06:15:54 -!- ikaros [n=ikaros@g226150163.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit ["Leave the magic to Houdini"] 06:17:17 -!- Quadrescence [n=quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 06:17:49 -!- X-Scale [i=email@89.180.205.13] has quit [Client Quit] 06:20:16 Adamant [n=Adamant@c-76-29-188-60.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 06:22:18 -!- xwl [n=user@a91-155-188-169.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Connection timed out] 06:22:46 -!- peter_12 [n=peter_12@S010600119506b129.gv.shawcable.net] has quit [] 06:30:32 -!- JHVH [n=jarv@dsl-217-155-101-22.zen.co.uk] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 06:31:59 -!- _ender [n=user@c-76-126-245-211.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 06:36:08 -!- MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@213.171.48.239] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 06:44:57 -!- snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)] 06:45:20 snurble [n=snurble@s83-191-238-2.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 06:51:51 -!- kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-107-56-85.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 06:52:48 kniu [n=kniu@pool-71-107-56-85.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 06:53:27 -!- araujo [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit ["Leaving"] 07:03:35 ASau [n=user@host112-230-msk.microtest.ru] has joined #scheme 07:04:06 lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has joined #scheme 07:08:17 -!- MrFahrenheit [n=RageOfTh@SE400.PPPoE-5903.sa.bih.net.ba] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 07:17:35 -!- segoe [n=segoe@201.Red-79-155-84.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit ["Lost terminal"] 07:21:21 -!- lowlycoder [n=x@unaffiliated/lowlycoder] has quit ["leaving"] 07:21:32 -!- blandest [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has quit ["Leaving."] 07:21:43 blandest [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has joined #scheme 07:24:56 araujo [n=araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 07:28:00 rstandy` [n=rastandy@net-93-144-243-56.t2.dsl.vodafone.it] has joined #scheme 07:28:26 -!- rstandy` [n=rastandy@net-93-144-243-56.t2.dsl.vodafone.it] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 07:28:29 -!- rstandy [n=rastandy@net-93-144-243-56.t2.dsl.vodafone.it] has quit ["ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)"] 07:28:36 rstandy [n=rastandy@net-93-144-243-56.t2.dsl.vodafone.it] has joined #scheme 07:41:38 Hydr4 [n=Lernaean@24-107-112-153.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 07:41:38 -!- Kusanagi [n=Lernaean@unaffiliated/kusanagi] has quit [Nick collision from services.] 07:42:34 rdd [n=user@c83-250-157-93.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 07:43:29 hkBst [n=hkBst@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 07:48:24 Sveklo [n=user@a88-115-8-123.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 07:50:03 -!- elmex [i=elmex@ist.m8geil.de] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 07:50:37 elmex [i=elmex@ist.m8geil.de] has joined #scheme 08:02:26 athos [n=philipp@92.250.250.68] has joined #scheme 08:02:59 -!- blandest [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 08:04:20 -!- foof [n=user@dn157-046.naist.jp] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 08:16:13 leppie|work [i=52d2e3c8@gateway/web/freenode/x-3ca59bf152fcc343] has joined #scheme 08:26:20 blandest [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has joined #scheme 08:30:24 Arelius [n=indy@64.174.9.113] has joined #scheme 08:39:39 attila_lendvai_ [n=ati@catv-89-132-189-132.catv.broadband.hu] has joined #scheme 08:47:33 johnnowak [n=johnnowa@207-38-171-48.c3-0.wsd-ubr1.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 08:51:17 -!- cipher [i=weinsd0@monica.cs.rpi.edu] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 08:54:01 Quadrescence [n=quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has joined #scheme 08:58:24 jewel [n=jewel@dsl-242-129-65.telkomadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 09:07:06 blandest1 [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has joined #scheme 09:07:36 -!- blandest [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 09:08:50 Can some one point me to an Emacs mode for scheme that supports evaluating buffers and s-expressions ? 09:09:13 quack.el 09:09:24 and probably any other scheme mode 09:12:18 I'm currently trying quack but I get this error "reference to undefined identifier: compile-file" 09:14:17 hm.. my quack.el doesn't contain any compile-file.. 09:14:28 my entire emacs doesn't know about compile-file, it says 09:16:07 that happens when i hit C-c C-k 09:16:22 it's bound to #'scheme-compile-file 09:16:49 ah, the error you get is in your scheme, not in quack, right? 09:16:53 yes 09:17:00 how do I compile using quack ? 09:17:06 what Scheme do you use? 09:17:30 plt scheme 4.2 (latest version on Windows) 09:17:38 -!- blandest1 is now known as blandest 09:18:04 artagnon [n=artagnon@unaffiliated/artagnon] has joined #scheme 09:23:44 it seems C-c C-k calls scheme-compile-file (from cmuscheme.el), which has calls COMPILE-FILE hard-coded. 09:24:28 do you really want to *compile* the file? or load it into plt? then C-c C-l might work 09:25:29 -!- athos [n=philipp@92.250.250.68] has quit ["leaving"] 09:26:29 MichaelRaskin [n=MichaelR@213.171.48.239] has joined #scheme 09:28:06 -!- artagnon [n=artagnon@unaffiliated/artagnon] has left #scheme 09:28:06 ecraven: seems to work. Thanks! 09:28:51 welcome ;) 09:28:56 have a look at paredit.el 09:29:19 I use paredit for CL code :D 09:29:41 great ;) 09:35:06 heya guys. 09:35:16 *elderK* sits alone in the corner, looks rather meek. 09:35:20 *elderK* lights up a cigarette. 09:49:54 borism [n=boris@195-50-201-218-dsl.krw.estpak.ee] has joined #scheme 09:51:34 ewww 09:55:48 Nshag [i=user@Mix-Orleans-106-2-114.w193-248.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #scheme 09:58:05 felipe [n=felipe@my.nada.kth.se] has joined #scheme 10:00:22 -!- blandest [n=blandest@softhouse.is.ew.ro] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] 10:00:42 -!- Axioplase is now known as Axioplase_ 10:07:44 :( It's been a rather crap day. 10:07:48 But hey, hkBst, what's up man? 10:08:23 not much 10:11:49 Gutted? 10:11:55 Or, are you just happy ot be relaxing? 10:13:36 I'm happy enough to be relaxing :) 10:14:55 :) 10:15:00 I'm trying to understand some things from SRFI#9. 10:15:06 the first record srfi. 10:15:15 I don't see why he has done some things the way he has... 10:15:38 Especially when I can't find him actually using... the data he is storing in some cases. 10:15:45 it's just there, waiting, forever. 10:15:52 like, :record-type 10:16:04