00:05:10 -!- mmc [~michal@cs27122118.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:07:07 -!- Modius [~Modius@cpe-24-28-30-165.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 00:26:25 -!- Scala [~agscala@198.111.39.24] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 00:39:02 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:40:59 -!- githogori [~githogori@220.sub-75-208-25.myvzw.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 00:42:38 hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw229253.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 00:54:24 githogori [~githogori@122.sub-75-210-206.myvzw.com] has joined #scheme 01:00:01 -!- githogori [~githogori@122.sub-75-210-206.myvzw.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:21:02 -!- Blkt [~user@net-93-146-149-37.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:23:20 -!- Axioplase_ is now known as Axioplase 01:25:25 -!- nego [~nego@c-76-16-30-244.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 01:37:20 -!- bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 01:42:24 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 01:44:27 mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 01:46:44 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@users-55-196.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 02:02:26 -!- seangrove [~user@70-36-236-168.dsl.static.sonic.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 02:07:06 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:17:59 Kerrick [~Kerrick@e40-1.nat.iastate.edu] has joined #scheme 02:22:13 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 02:27:23 -!- Fare [~Fare@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:30:12 jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 02:34:15 jcowan_ [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 02:35:16 black_13 [black_13@adsl-99-73-20-72.dsl.aus2tx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 02:35:25 -!- saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-THIRTY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 02:35:59 -!- black_13 [black_13@adsl-99-73-20-72.dsl.aus2tx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Client Quit] 02:36:34 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 02:39:16 githogori [~githogori@adsl-66-123-22-146.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net] has joined #scheme 02:43:18 seangrove [~user@c-71-198-44-87.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 02:48:13 -!- jcowan_ is now known as jcowan 02:57:57 Adamant_ [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has joined #scheme 02:58:05 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:58:05 -!- Adamant_ is now known as Adamant 03:05:56 -!- Kerrick [~Kerrick@e40-1.nat.iastate.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 03:09:22 jcowan: I'll clean up my notes on string normalization later, but I think there are 3 options to vote on. 03:09:40 What are they (or where are they)? 03:11:07 How about kicking Unicode out of WG1 into WG2 and making strings be octet vectors? 03:11:18 1) explicit conversion to the four unicode normal forms, 2) two procedures to convert to an implementation specific canonical and compatibility normal form, 3) one procedure to convert to a general implementation specific normal form 03:11:30 plus of course the options to drop this or move it to WG2 03:12:33 i.e. 2) would provide `string-normalize-canonical' and `string-normalize-compatibility' and 3) would provide just `string-normalize' 03:13:14 I think 3 has to be ruled out, because K and non-K normalizations aren't interchangeable, and they don't (contrary to my earlier claims) commute with either C or D. 03:13:58 jcowan: did you read my wiki page? 03:14:05 Riastradh: UnicodeCowan does not require WG1 Schemes to support Unicode. 03:14:12 No. 03:15:08 I'm reading it now. 03:16:04 metasyntax [~taylor@72.86.89.174] has joined #scheme 03:18:27 I meant going further than making Unicode non-mandatory -- I meant making non-Unicode strings mandatory, by making strings be octet vectors, period, interpreted however you like (as ISO-8859-1, as UTF-8, whatever). 03:18:28 saccade [~saccade@209-6-54-113.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 03:18:54 WG1 will likely have blobs/byte-vectors. 03:19:32 Removing strings (and thus string literals and operations) would be too big a deviation from R5RS. 03:19:37 WG2 can add `unistrings', or `texts', or whatever, which are nicer sequences of Unicode scalar values. 03:21:34 You could even make characters (at least) Unicode scalar values, and just reject storing certain characters into strings. (By `at least', I mean that they could be more than just Unicode scalar values, too; e.g., they can have bucky bits in some implementations.) 03:24:06 This gives you much more flexibility to do Unicode strings `better' -- there would be no perceived competition with legacy strings over Unicode. 03:24:12 We're stuck with backwards compatibility with R5RS and existing string implementations, we're can't really redefine strings. 03:24:31 Sure you can. This is not incompatible with the R5RS, and it is compatible with many existing Scheme systems. 03:25:04 Anyway, this isn't `redefining strings'; this is just clarifying how Scheme systems interpreted strings in the RnRS for twenty-five years. 03:25:05 You are basically describing UnicodeCowan, or if you are not, I don't see the distinction. 03:25:10 s/clarifying/specifying/1 03:25:23 What is the URI for UnicodeCowan? 03:25:45 vu3rdd [~vu3rdd@117.196.140.94] has joined #scheme 03:26:04 http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/UnicodeCowan 03:27:09 Riastradh: R5RS doesn't allow rejecting storing certain characters into strings. 03:27:35 No, but UnicodeCowan does. 03:28:02 jcowan, UnicodeCowan does not require that strings be octet vectors, with which one can reliably do binary I/O, for example, as far as I can tell. 03:28:21 jcowan: where does it say that? 03:29:18 jcowan: Riastradh is talking about something completely different, he means explicitly forbidding R5RS string literals and string operations from producing or accepting full Unicode strings. 03:29:48 foof, if the R5RS prohibits such rejection, then it's a mistake in translating the intent into specification. The designer of RnRS strings implemented them with characters that can't be stored in them. 03:30:33 Kerrick [~Kerrick@e40-1.nat.iastate.edu] has joined #scheme 03:31:11 Riastradh: By your proposal, "" would either be illegal, or would produce a byte-string in some encoding such as utf-8. 03:31:32 That's right. If you want a Unicode string, you'll have to ask WG2 for that. Maybe #"whatever you just typed". 03:31:38 (string-ref "" 0) would not be allowed to return #\ 03:32:11 Whether that is acceptible by the intent or letter of R5RS, it would simply break every existing implementation that provides Unicode strings. 03:32:25 (char->integer (string-ref "" 0)) 03:32:25 ;Value: #xe6 03:33:10 Yes, that's what Chicken does, and you need to load the utf8 egg to get Unicode string accessors. 03:34:42 But in any implementation with native Unicode it wouldn't make sense to do that, even if it were possible. 03:34:52 Define `native Unicode'. 03:35:28 core string accessors operate on full codepoints 03:36:48 -!- hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw229253.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:36:57 jcowan: does your proposal really say that (string-set! str valid-index supported-ch) can be an error? 03:37:23 No, but it should. The intention was that characters can be a superset of string-characters, but somehow that either dropped out or never got in. 03:39:06 -!- seangrove [~user@c-71-198-44-87.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:40:07 Or I may have thought it was implied by something else. Anyhow, I have added it explicitly. 03:43:12 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 03:45:45 jcowan: At any rate, can you appreciate my argument that explicit normalization forms may be premature for WG1? 03:46:48 -!- Kerrick [~Kerrick@e40-1.nat.iastate.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 03:47:26 Sorry, the telephone interrupted. 03:48:17 I think your argument is pretty thin; I can't see allowing WG1 implementations to provide autonormalizing strings as the default kind of string. Too many identities no longer work (i.e. concatenating a string of length 2 with a string of length 2 does not necessarily produce a string of length 4). 03:48:34 Autonormalizing strings make a lot more sense as an add-on. 03:48:34 In MIT Scheme, a character consists of a Unicode scalar value together with a set of bucky bits. Strings are octet vectors (every string satisfies VECTOR-8B?, and vice versa), but they can store UTF-8, and there are various operations on strings that interpret them as UTF-8; and there are wide strings. 03:49:13 Ugh, bucky bits are evil :( 03:49:38 What's evil about non-Unicode characters? 03:49:59 (another conversation is interrupting) 03:50:00 Nothing is evil about non-Unicode characters. I'm dissing bucky bits. 03:50:30 They're trying to pack keyboard event information into characters. 03:50:53 It's a performance hack that just encourages sloppy event handling. 03:51:33 Certainly that's their historical origin, but I don't think that's the only purpose of them. 03:51:46 Then don't call them bucky bits. 03:52:23 Whatever. It's a convention for interpreting non-Unicode characters, which by UnicodeCowan must have scalar values >= #x200000. 03:52:27 Well... OK, I think probably any additional meta-info stored in the characters' high bits would be a mistake. 03:53:22 I think scalar values > #x1F00000 should hold only actual additional characters outside of Unicode. 03:53:33 What is an "actual" character? 03:53:42 There are many characters that are not graphic. 03:54:02 I mean, a distinct character that is not just an existing character with meta-info added. 03:54:04 Control-Meta-F would just be another kind of control character, and as such perfectly legitimate. 03:54:51 Yes, I specifically think that's a mistake, and would prefer we make it impossible. 03:55:06 OK, foof, but why hang on to the RnRS string model, then, and tack Unicode onto it? 03:55:53 What RnRS string model? Do you mean R5RS? If so, which R5RS string model? 03:56:17 Strings as octet vectors and characters with bucky bits have been around for a long time, implemented by the original designer of RnRS strings back in the R3RS or the RRRS or so. 03:56:21 Riastradh: It's what existing implementations do. In racket, ikarus, gauche, almost every impl w/ unicode strings, it's the standard RnRS strings which are Unicode. 03:56:48 We cannot forbid them from being Unicode, or force unnatural semantics like making them byte-vectors. 03:56:55 `Unnatural'? 03:56:57 What the heck does that mean? 03:57:15 Please don't put loaded emotional terms into technical arguments. 03:57:18 s/unnatural// 03:57:23 Thanks. 03:57:34 We _could_ leave them unspecified, and provide in WG2 a new string type with a new syntax. 03:58:22 We could even choose to optionally allow it to be non-disjoint from the RnRS strings. 03:59:11 Why is making strings be octet vectors any worse than making strings be Unicode scalar value vectors? Both have existing support from implementations, although strings as octet vectors have been around much longer than strings as Unicode scalar value sequences; until the R6RS, pretty much every Scheme system did that. 03:59:32 Except Gauche, which actually had to care about encodings. 03:59:37 Riastradh: The point is we're not making them be _either_. 04:00:35 Strings are character vectors, but (as revised by me) it's not a requirement that every character can be an element of a string. 04:00:37 OK, so they won't be useful for portable binary I/O, as they have been used for decades; and they won't be useful for portable Unicode text processing. What will they be good for, then? 04:01:10 Also, have you've programmed heavily in languages with disjoint string types, like C's char vs. wchar_t, or Python's two string types? It's a mess. 04:02:09 You need to duplicate every API. 04:04:34 Riastradh: they were never usable for portable binary I/O, but the new byte-vectors will be 04:04:36 Not exactly. If you make Unicode scalar value sequences sufficiently different from octet vectors, it won't be duplication! Example: doesn't look much like SRFI 13. 04:05:23 Riastradh: but you still need SRFI-13 - two completely separate libraries for basically the same functionality 04:05:24 Strings were certainly usable for portable binary I/O for a long time. Gauche may have broken that property, of course, but for a long time, it was the only practical way to do binary I/O. 04:05:38 No, you don't really need most of SRFI 13. 04:06:04 Before Gauche there were the Java implementations, and in Scheme48 you didn't even have ASCII codepoints. 04:06:56 What Java implementations? All I know of is SISC, but I don't know what it does about text, and it's relatively new. 04:07:07 SISC, Kawa, JScheme. 04:07:28 Kawa and JScheme aren't Scheme systems. 04:08:03 Now you're just being argumentative :P 04:08:06 They cosmetically resemble Scheme, perhaps, but are really closer in semantics to JavaScript or something. 04:08:55 If you prefer to think that Scheme strings have always been portable byte-vectors, fine, but now the cat's out of the bag. 04:09:41 It's true that I'm being argumentative, but perhaps the point I'm trying to get at is that RnRS strings are basically a botch and shouldn't have any more effort wasted on them. 04:10:07 Yes, they are a botch. 04:10:21 My hands are tied :( 04:11:23 -!- vu3rdd [~vu3rdd@117.196.140.94] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:12:24 Quite so. Our forefathers provided us with "characters" and "strings", and now we must make them meaningful in the new and changed world. 04:14:04 What I really want is simple, efficient, portable binary I/O with octet vectors that support efficient slicing; and not to give anyone the illusion that Scheme programs written with strings in the past will be remotely likely to make sense in the context of Unicode. 04:14:28 Well, such is life. 04:15:21 It would be neat if someone implemented and demonstrated that it worked well for writing practical text-processing applications, but I don't have the steam for that myself. 04:17:14 Kerrick [~Kerrick@e40-1.nat.iastate.edu] has joined #scheme 04:20:53 Well, what you describe there is fairly similar to BreakIterator, which certainly has been used in practical Java code. 04:21:19 (I don't remember what the intent about normalization was in that proposal.) 04:21:38 It says that it has nothing to say about it. 04:21:57 No, it says basically that I had a lot to say about it but didn't have time to write it down before I wanted to put the document up. 04:22:26 Subclasses of BreakIterator know how to move through Java (i.e. UTF-16) strings in various sizes: characters, clusters, words (of a particular language), sentences, etc. 04:22:50 ThaiWordIterator, for example, has to know quite a lot of Thai morphology, because there is no overt word separator, but line breaks can only appear between words. 04:22:59 The difference here, of course, is that you don't know whether texts are stored internally with UTF-16, or UTF-8, or UTF-9. 04:23:16 Clients of BreakIterator don't "know" either. 04:23:52 (What a pity -- the Unicode Consortium has not endorsed UTF-9, according to Wikipedia.) 04:24:13 Note the date of issue. 04:24:28 (Yes, I know.) 04:25:21 The UTC rightly thinks that the very limited funds available to them should be spent on things used by actual human beings, such as minority-language scripts. 04:32:42 Anyway, it is long past my bedtime now, so good night! 04:35:41 -!- Kerrick [~Kerrick@e40-1.nat.iastate.edu] has quit [Quit: Kerrick] 04:36:10 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 04:37:20 hohoho [~hohoho@o197-222.pubnet.titech.ac.jp] has joined #scheme 04:39:23 jonrafkind [~jon@c-67-172-254-235.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 04:52:29 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:55:57 -!- luz [~davids@201.17.88.176] has quit [Quit: Client exiting] 05:04:44 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 05:10:31 -!- FurnaceBoy [~FurnaceBo@bas2-toronto10-2925235460.dsl.bell.ca] has quit [Quit: zzz] 05:16:16 -!- hohoho [~hohoho@o197-222.pubnet.titech.ac.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:21:43 stupid typhoon 05:21:46 ryaether [~ryan@173-26-124-96.client.mchsi.com] has joined #scheme 05:21:49 *foof* is soaking wet 05:22:53 Riastradh: the chibi string processing library will look something like your text proposal 05:23:27 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 05:23:47 Largely because it will be based on my own similar text library from Common-Scheme (which pre-dated yours, though I don't know if you read it). 05:26:27 vu3rdd [~vu3rdd@117.196.130.11] has joined #scheme 05:28:45 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 05:41:54 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 06:01:30 mmc [~michal@cs27122118.pp.htv.fi] has joined #scheme 06:01:54 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:14:43 -!- rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-93-88-117.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 06:15:49 rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-93-183-205.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has joined #scheme 06:35:32 DaDa` [~user@96-199.203-62.cust.bluewin.ch] has joined #scheme 06:52:57 -!- ryaether [~ryan@173-26-124-96.client.mchsi.com] has left #scheme 07:03:55 pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has joined #scheme 07:12:48 wingo [~wingo@247.Red-79-156-65.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 07:16:11 -!- emma [~em@unaffiliated/emma] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 07:19:40 nego [~nego@c-76-16-30-244.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 07:20:53 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@c-67-172-254-235.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 07:26:48 -!- wingo [~wingo@247.Red-79-156-65.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 07:28:42 emma [~em@unaffiliated/emma] has joined #scheme 07:33:16 -!- emma [~em@unaffiliated/emma] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 07:43:26 -!- atomx [~user@93.112.81.240] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 07:45:08 schmir [~schmir@mail.brainbot.com] has joined #scheme 07:45:27 -!- nego [~nego@c-76-16-30-244.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 07:47:29 nego [~nego@c-76-16-30-244.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 07:54:11 -!- mmc [~michal@cs27122118.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 07:58:16 choas [~lars@p5792C2BD.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 08:02:38 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 08:06:35 rdd [~rdd@c83-250-48-164.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 08:12:38 -!- vu3rdd [~vu3rdd@117.196.130.11] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 09:21:50 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@pantagruel.mccme.ru] has joined #scheme 09:23:59 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@pantagruel.mccme.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:24:43 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@pantagruel.mccme.ru] has joined #scheme 09:29:11 fradgers- [~fradgers-@5e055c8a.bb.sky.com] has joined #scheme 09:45:04 -!- rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-93-183-205.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 09:48:03 -!- DaDa` [~user@96-199.203-62.cust.bluewin.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 09:50:53 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 09:53:31 prince_ [~prince@203.246.179.177] has joined #scheme 10:03:12 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-148.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 10:04:14 rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-93-183-205.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has joined #scheme 10:06:14 -!- xwl_ [~user@nat/nokia/x-buzuihzeollwkpje] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 10:09:56 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 10:31:04 pmd [~user@2001:690:2100:4:200:1aff:fe19:daa8] has joined #scheme 10:31:54 homie [91fd03c7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.145.253.3.199] has joined #scheme 10:33:14 -!- pmd [~user@2001:690:2100:4:200:1aff:fe19:daa8] has left #scheme 10:52:55 atomx [~user@93.112.81.240] has joined #scheme 11:16:57 emma [~em@unaffiliated/emma] has joined #scheme 11:28:13 -!- homie [91fd03c7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.145.253.3.199] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 11:39:15 timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 11:43:48 -!- rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-93-183-205.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:46:34 -!- djjack [~djjack@cpe-098-026-029-215.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:49:06 -!- snorble [~none@s83-179-14-105.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:04:42 HG` [~HG@xdsl-92-252-80-125.dip.osnanet.de] has joined #scheme 12:35:41 -!- stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 12:37:11 stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has joined #scheme 12:38:36 edw```` [~user@71.23.221.213] has joined #scheme 13:08:20 bzzbzz [~franco@modemcable240.34-83-70.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 13:10:03 -!- jmcphers [~jmcphers@218.185.108.156] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:10:53 jmcphers [~jmcphers@218.185.108.156] has joined #scheme 13:11:43 hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw229253.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 13:21:01 -!- HG` [~HG@xdsl-92-252-80-125.dip.osnanet.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 13:25:11 -!- saccade [~saccade@209-6-54-113.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 13:26:01 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 13:26:36 -!- timj is now known as timja 13:27:02 -!- timja is now known as timj 13:27:47 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [Quit: Adamant] 13:28:31 -!- timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:29:26 timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 13:37:10 -!- timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 13:40:30 mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 13:43:16 timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 13:50:33 luz [~David@139.82.89.24] has joined #scheme 13:53:44 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 13:55:14 -!- foof [~user@li126-140.members.linode.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:55:21 foof [~user@li126-140.members.linode.com] has joined #scheme 13:56:50 femtoo [~femto@95-89-248-51-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 14:01:48 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 14:07:37 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@cpe-98-14-173-5.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:08:51 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 14:11:31 FurnaceBoy [~FurnaceBo@bas2-toronto10-2925235460.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #scheme 14:13:08 stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has joined #scheme 14:26:49 samth [~samth@punge.ccs.neu.edu] has joined #scheme 14:37:21 -!- timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 14:39:13 -!- schmir [~schmir@mail.brainbot.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:40:16 timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 14:44:13 -!- timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Client Quit] 14:44:21 timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 14:44:30 -!- timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:45:29 timj [~timj@e176192032.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 14:45:33 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@94.167.130.251] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 14:46:11 metasyntax` [~taylor@12.132.219.7] has joined #scheme 14:46:28 copumpkin [~copumpkin@94.164.176.160] has joined #scheme 15:05:58 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 15:07:29 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 15:13:24 Fare [~Fare@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has joined #scheme 15:24:09 BW^- [~Miranda@92.83.183.162] has joined #scheme 15:24:26 -!- BW^- [~Miranda@92.83.183.162] has quit [Client Quit] 15:24:44 BW^- [~Miranda@92.83.183.162] has joined #scheme 15:24:45 does SRFI1 have anything for lists what substring is for strings? 15:25:11 The closest is the combination of TAKE and DROP. 15:25:20 k 15:25:40 riastradh: i checked out the pdf about how to implement monads in scheme CTG(?) passed sunday. 15:25:44 i don't see the use of them, eh. 15:26:06 they're a way to produce state behavior without mutations? 15:26:13 i mean.. changing state 15:26:17 anyhow. 15:26:33 They're a way to make actions first-class objects, rather than second-class artefacts of the evaluation model. 15:27:46 hm. when could this be of value? 15:28:28 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 15:28:54 There are two important things this enables: (1) The language can then be purely functional by default, enabling many, many more program transformations and reasoning about programs that works by default, rather than under very strong assumptions which, say, a Scheme compiler that doesn't compile the whole program at once can't make. 15:30:37 -!- lusory [~bart@bb220-255-244-226.singnet.com.sg] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 15:30:38 schmir [~schmir@mail.brainbot.com] has joined #scheme 15:32:02 and (2)? 15:33:26 i trust he's typing. :) 15:33:53 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 15:36:17 lusory [~bart@bb121-6-159-78.singnet.com.sg] has joined #scheme 15:36:58 edw````` [~user@71.23.221.213] has joined #scheme 15:37:02 -!- schmir [~schmir@mail.brainbot.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:40:18 -!- edw```` [~user@71.23.221.213] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:41:08 jimrees_ [~jimrees@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has joined #scheme 15:42:26 jewel [~jewel@196-210-187-107.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 15:49:25 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 15:49:35 *boink* 15:49:48 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 15:52:01 (2) Procedures such as MAP-TREE can be generalized beyond the monad inherent in the evaluation model -- in the case of Scheme, a combination of the state monad and the continuation monad -- to arbitrary monads, without requiring global program transformations. (Or, effectively, using monads is a kind of global transformation, but it is a straightforward and very general one that subsumes many others.) 15:53:25 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Client Quit] 15:54:58 -!- BW^- [~Miranda@92.83.183.162] has quit [Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org] 15:55:48 Riastradh: thanks for the explanations 15:55:54 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@pantagruel.mccme.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 15:56:11 Riastradh: i found them helpful :) 16:03:05 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 16:03:09 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 16:04:15 bweaver [~user@75-148-111-133-Chattanooga.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #scheme 16:04:31 RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@users-33-215.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 16:07:19 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-148.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 16:09:19 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 16:15:22 -!- stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 16:16:42 stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has joined #scheme 16:17:57 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-144-197-172.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 16:18:15 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-144-197-172.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has left #scheme 16:31:57 Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has joined #scheme 16:33:50 jonrafkind [~jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has joined #scheme 16:39:45 Cowmoo [~Cowmoo@cambridge-vxty.basistech.com] has joined #scheme 16:41:26 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 17:10:20 saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-THIRTY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU] has joined #scheme 17:24:12 Jafet1 [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 17:24:48 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:34:17 -!- Jafet1 is now known as Jafet 17:37:19 snorble [~none@s83-179-14-105.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 17:39:12 kar8nga [~kar8nga@k-165.vc-graz.ac.at] has joined #scheme 17:52:50 -!- sir_lewk [~jlg95@tux64-13.cs.drexel.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 17:53:17 sir_lewk [~jlg95@tux64-13.cs.drexel.edu] has joined #scheme 17:53:43 langmartin [~user@exeuntcha2.tva.gov] has joined #scheme 17:57:38 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 17:57:47 -!- kar8nga [~kar8nga@k-165.vc-graz.ac.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:06:23 -!- ASau [~user@83.69.227.32] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 18:07:52 -!- tltstc [~tltstc@cpe-76-90-95-39.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: tltstc] 18:12:00 gravicappa [~gravicapp@91.78.231.181] has joined #scheme 18:13:46 Jafet1 [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 18:14:14 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 18:14:25 -!- Jafet1 is now known as Jafet 18:14:35 ASau [~user@83.69.227.32] has joined #scheme 18:20:55 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 18:24:06 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 18:32:03 -!- stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 18:35:42 stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has joined #scheme 18:44:11 wingo [~wingo@247.Red-79-156-65.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 18:51:28 evening 18:51:59 moin moin 18:52:13 Hi wingo 18:52:41 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 18:53:21 jonrafkind [~jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has joined #scheme 18:53:44 greets & greets 19:01:04 meets and beets 19:01:30 = borscht! 19:02:01 *FurnaceBoy* thinks it's the hungry stomach talkin' 19:04:25 -!- jewel [~jewel@196-210-187-107.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 19:18:36 -!- femtoo [~femto@95-89-248-51-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 19:24:56 wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-34-223-80.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 19:25:03 homie [~user@xdsl-78-34-223-80.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 19:29:06 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 19:29:43 -!- ASau [~user@83.69.227.32] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 19:30:14 ASau [~user@83.69.227.32] has joined #scheme 19:31:28 -!- stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:33:28 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 19:35:42 stepnem [~stepnem@88.103.132.186] has joined #scheme 19:44:22 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 20:03:03 bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has joined #scheme 20:13:27 Nshag [~none@AClermont-Ferrand-551-1-124-45.w92-150.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #scheme 20:13:31 Blkt [~user@net-93-146-149-37.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 20:14:07 good evening everyone 20:14:23 Hi. 20:15:53 hello Blkt, & Riastradh. 20:16:12 i have been pointing people to your style guide recently, Riastradh. 20:16:50 -!- alaricsp [~alaric@relief.warhead.org.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 20:22:18 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@91.78.231.181] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:23:12 *wingo* ponders steppers 20:26:45 I use steppers all the time in C and assembly, but I have never found them very useful in Scheme. 20:27:11 stepper motors? 20:27:44 Stepper dancers. 20:32:04 Iterators perhaps? 20:33:01 Now, a REPL in the environment of each stack frame is handy. 20:33:18 And much easier to implement than a good stepper. 20:34:17 Oh, a debugging device, to execute programs step by step. 20:35:13 Well, sometimes it's useful in lisp too, but if you need it, it's a sign you've got ill-written functions that should be thrown away and rewritten. 20:35:20 Riastradh: i have never used a good scheme stepper, but i feel like i should 20:35:31 DrScheme has a nice one. 20:35:42 maybe i need to reevaluate (no pun :P) 20:40:37 racket sorely needs a REPL at each stack frame 20:41:11 i recently removed that in guile. perhaps out of ignorance. 20:41:26 but there is the question: what module should one be in at a given stack frame? 20:41:28 how do you debug stuff without it? printf? thats what I use in racket 20:41:42 yes i use something guile has called `pk' 20:41:49 is that printf? 20:41:54 wingo, at every point in the program there is a lexical environment. Use that one. 20:42:14 (define (peek . stuff) (newline) (display ";;; ") (write stuff) (newline) (car (last-pair stuff))) 20:42:19 (define pk peek) 20:42:42 so yes, printf debugging essentially, though it has the grace that you can wrap it around an expressoin 20:42:54 i dont know about you,but i find that to be the absolute slowest debugging method possible 20:43:25 I keep using scheme48 just because of the debugger 20:43:27 Riastradh: it gets complicated with macros. then, you have the problem that you can't set! local vars in general... 20:43:35 jonrafkind: yes i agree. 20:43:42 Of course you can't SET! local variables. That's OK. 20:44:07 in the thing i had before you could set! local vars that were set! in the original source. 20:44:11 It's OK if the local macros aren't available in the environment at the REPL. 20:44:37 Riastradh: particularly: if in that repl you do a (define (foo) 1), does it affect any toplevel env that is visible from elsewhere? 20:44:47 No. 20:44:50 ok. 20:45:02 -!- langmartin [~user@exeuntcha2.tva.gov] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 20:45:19 but CL people like the ability to catch an unbound-symbol error, define the function in question, and restart 20:45:25 mit scheme allows this too, no? 20:45:26 That's a load of nonsense. 20:45:33 Oh, you mean interactively? 20:45:42 yes, interactively 20:45:52 MIT Scheme allows that, yes. No programs rely on it, of course. 20:45:58 of course 20:46:19 but debugging is just as much about the debugger (human) as about the debugee (program)... 20:46:33 That's right. The debugger is a meta-program. Meta-programs can rely on it. 20:47:29 wingo: Restarting from an unbound symbol error is not supported in all CLs, IIRC. 20:48:21 chandler: you've programmed CL, no? have you found that behavior to be useful? 20:48:30 restarts on unbound symbol errors 20:48:30 One would hope that Schemers would have this problem less frequently, as it should be lexically apparent within the scope of a module. 20:48:35 No, I haven't. 20:48:58 If I ever ran into that, the solution was to abort back to top-level and reload the system. 20:49:05 I haven't found it useful either. What is much more useful is relying on the lexical environment to statically tell you what was unbound. 20:49:10 (System in the DEFSYSTEM/ASDF sense.) 20:49:14 well, i guess it depends on your perspective... are modules "closed" or are they "open"... but yes, point well taken. 20:49:17 That you *can't* rely on that in Common Lisp is part of what makes Common Lisp fundamentally broken. 20:50:00 guile will probably switch to a mode in which compiling a file will effectively letrec* the forms, though there is some work to be done. 20:51:29 ...isn't that what every Scheme does at the top level? 20:52:30 Not *really*. 20:52:39 But maybe I'm misunderstanding what wingo means. 20:53:12 The top level is its own thing, and has no analog to any binding form. 20:53:35 That's what makes the traditional top level fundamentally broken. 20:53:50 Except for subsequent definitions' being equivalent to SET!, how does it differ from LETREC*? 20:54:02 (and ignoring macros) 20:54:11 Riastradh: right, it's the macro thing 20:54:30 Except for the important ways in which it differs, it's exactly the same as LETREC*. 20:54:44 Well, see, that's what I meant! 20:55:07 see http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/master/guile.html/R6RS-Incompatibilities.html#R6RS-Incompatibilities 20:55:08 -rudybot:#scheme- http://tinyurl.com/3yjczl4 20:55:17 the even/odd example 20:57:31 Wait, what are `top level forms' outside of a library in the R6RS? 20:57:43 in the r6rs they don't exist 20:57:50 So what's the issue? 20:57:52 well, there are programs 20:57:58 that is the latter point 20:58:06 r6rs toplevel programs 20:58:15 What are `R6RS toplevel programs'? 20:58:16 -!- hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw229253.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 20:58:19 This sounds like a design bug. 20:58:37 atomx` [~user@93.112.81.240] has joined #scheme 20:58:41 see section 8 of r6rs.pdf 21:01:13 -!- saccade [~saccade@BRAIN-AND-COG-THIRTY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 21:01:46 Even putting aside SET! and macros, in a LETREC* form the compiler can determine when the evaluation of one of the inits depends on the value of some subsequent binding, or refers to some unbound variable. That's not the case with the traditional top level. 21:01:50 hohoho [~hohoho@ntkngw229253.kngw.nt.ftth.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp] has joined #scheme 21:01:52 pumpkin [~copumpkin@94.164.176.160] has joined #scheme 21:01:53 -!- felipe [~felipe@my.nada.kth.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:01:54 Let's see if this works: 21:01:54 rudybot: init racket/load 21:01:56 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@94.164.176.160] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:02:53 chandler: not in general... but that's not germane to this particular point 21:02:57 -!- Cowmoo [~Cowmoo@cambridge-vxty.basistech.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:02:57 -!- adzuci [~ada2358@unaffiliated/ada2358] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:03:04 in this case the issue is order of expansion 21:03:11 *chandler* drums fingers 21:03:13 rudybot: eval (module m racket (define x (lambda () foo))) 21:03:13 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:03:19 adzuci_ [~ada2358@login.ccs.neu.edu] has joined #scheme 21:03:34 -!- atomx [~user@93.112.81.240] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:03:45 the r6rs specifies that forms should be expanded only to the point that the expander realizes they are definitions, expressions, or syntax definitions 21:03:52 chandler: error: with-limit: out of time 21:03:52 chandler: your racket/load sandbox is ready 21:03:53 chandler: error: eval:1:38: compile: unbound identifier in module in: foo 21:03:53 then the syntax definitions are all made 21:04:18 then all other forms are expanded, treating expressions as definitions of dummy vars. 21:04:26 -!- Fare [~Fare@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:04:30 wingo: I'm confused. What's "not in general"? 21:04:52 Fare [~Fare@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has joined #scheme 21:05:09 chandler: if letrec* could give errors in general, aziz & dybvig wouldn't have written letrec reloaded, right? 21:06:04 s/in general/in general at expand or compile time/ 21:06:24 all that strongly-connected vs weaky-connected foo is complicated 21:07:10 I think that's a different issue than the one I'm describing. 21:07:23 perhaps i misunderstood you then. 21:07:35 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-63-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 21:07:43 heya leppi 21:07:45 e 21:08:12 -!- luz [~David@139.82.89.24] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 21:08:13 *chandler* is scanning over the letrec reloaded paper again 21:08:57 -!- pumpkin is now known as copumpkin 21:09:33 Ah. The statement I made is certainly wrong with respect to ordering, unless one believes that (letrec* ((x (if #f y #t)) (y #t)) x) ought to be an error. 21:09:33 -!- z0d [~z0d@unaffiliated/z0d] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:10:05 yes, it is interesting 21:10:54 clinger had a good snark at this sfp at the indiana folk, saying that when claiming that internal definitions should be letrec*, they claimed letrec* optimization was easy, 21:11:03 whereas later they come to admit it's complicated 21:11:16 some point about that in the library-group talk 21:11:18 It's not really much more complicated than LETREC, is it? 21:11:23 Riastradh: it is. 21:11:54 Also, are the two distinguishable if each continuation for the evaluation of the right-hand expressions can be used only once? 21:12:13 yes they are distinguishable. 21:12:19 "the two"? 21:12:26 LETREC and LETREC*. 21:12:39 Sorry, of course they're distinguishable. 21:12:39 (letrec ((a 10) (b a)) b) is an error. 21:13:04 *wingo* waits for clarification :) 21:13:30 What I meant to ask is whether there is any pair of programs differing only in the use of LETREC versus LETREC*, neither of which is an error, but such that the two programs exhibit different behaviour. 21:14:02 i *think* that all valid letrec instances are valid letrec* instance 21:14:03 Is there any such pair of programs for LET and LET*? 21:14:03 s 21:14:21 Yes, of course, chandler. (let ((a 5)) (let ((a 3) (b a)) b)) 21:14:41 but the problem is that once people start to code, depending on the letrec* expansion for internal defines, 21:14:48 That's not what I meant to ask. Retry: are you asking under the assumption that left-to-right evaluation order is used for LETREC? 21:14:49 wingo, that's not quite what I was asking. I was asking whether furthermore, substituting LETREC* for LETREC changes the semantics of the program. 21:14:55 we enter the letrec*-not-compatible-with-letrec case. 21:14:57 saint_cypher [~rjspotter@70-36-245-104.dsl.static.sonic.net] has joined #scheme 21:15:56 chandler, the semantics of any program using LETREC includes the semantics of the program using LETREC restricted to left-to-right evaluation, and the program using LETREC restructed to right-to-left evaluation, and so on, with any evaluation order you want. So I'm not interested in that difference. In other words, a program using LETREC that behaves differently under different evaluation orders is an error. 21:16:04 (or rather, I'm considering it to be an error for the sake of my question) 21:17:04 i think you're being argumentative ;) letrec* provides certain guarantees that letrec does not. if people assume that the letrec* guarantees hold, compiler writers have to suck up the strongly-connected/weakly-connected junk from letrec reloaded. 21:17:32 I'm not being argumentative -- I'm just wondering whether LETREC* is a drop-in replacement for LETREC. 21:17:37 I think it may be. 21:17:39 ah. 21:17:50 I believe it is, which is why Racket's LETREC behaves as R6RS's LETREC* does. 21:18:10 so, i think it is; but some of the original "fixing letrec" optimizations do not hold for letrec*. 21:18:15 Well, whether it is a drop-in replacement for LETREC restricted so that the continuations with which the right-hand expressions are evaluated may be used only once each. 21:18:22 It is not, however, a drop-in replacement for the R5RS's LETREC. 21:18:25 wingo: Is that the case, though? Doesn't letrec actually provide more guarantees to the implementor than letrec*? 21:18:26 because you have to order the side effects. 21:18:47 LETREC provides more guarantees to the implementor. LETREC* provides more guarantees to the programmer. 21:19:04 chandler: yes, what Riastradh said. 21:30:25 Cowmoo [~Cowmoo@cambridge-vxty.basistech.com] has joined #scheme 21:33:26 -!- antoszka [~antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has quit [Quit: +++ killed by SIGSEGV +++] 21:33:59 antoszka [~antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has joined #scheme 21:35:06 -!- stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:39:07 -!- Cowmoo [~Cowmoo@cambridge-vxty.basistech.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:39:12 waltermai [~user@131.247.152.4] has joined #scheme 21:49:56 Scala_ [~agscala@198.111.39.24] has joined #scheme 21:55:06 -!- fradgers- [~fradgers-@5e055c8a.bb.sky.com] has left #scheme 22:04:32 FunkyDrummer [~RageOfTho@users-33-82.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 22:08:25 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@users-33-215.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 22:12:13 -!- wingo [~wingo@247.Red-79-156-65.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 22:34:52 -!- prince_ [~prince@203.246.179.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 22:35:19 prince_ [~prince@203.246.179.177] has joined #scheme 22:38:46 -!- Blkt [~user@net-93-146-149-37.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:39:38 -!- pygospa [~pygospa@g225225166.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 22:41:15 pygospa [~pygospa@g225209155.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 22:41:47 Blkt [~user@net-93-146-149-37.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 22:42:34 -!- Blkt [~user@net-93-146-149-37.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:51:37 -!- pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:59:53 -!- Scala_ [~agscala@198.111.39.24] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 23:03:35 felipe [~felipe@my.nada.kth.se] has joined #scheme 23:07:34 ysph [~user@24-181-93-165.dhcp.leds.al.charter.com] has joined #scheme 23:08:53 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 23:11:05 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 23:12:18 -!- ecraven [~user@140.78.42.213] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 23:12:19 ryaether [~ryan@173-26-124-96.client.mchsi.com] has joined #scheme 23:13:13 Scala_ [~agscala@198.111.39.24] has joined #scheme 23:13:53 -!- ryaether [~ryan@173-26-124-96.client.mchsi.com] has quit [Client Quit] 23:14:18 ryaether [~ryan@173-26-124-96.client.mchsi.com] has joined #scheme 23:33:56 -!- Scala_ [~agscala@198.111.39.24] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 23:34:04 neilv [~user@dsl092-071-029.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net] has joined #scheme 23:37:22 mbohun [~mbohun@202.124.73.128] has joined #scheme 23:37:49 bohunm [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has joined #scheme 23:39:22 -!- bohunm [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has quit [Client Quit] 23:39:30 bohunm [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has joined #scheme 23:39:48 -!- bohunm [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:40:16 bohunm [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has joined #scheme 23:40:38 -!- bohunm [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has quit [Client Quit] 23:41:57 -!- mbohun [~mbohun@202.124.73.128] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 23:42:37 mbohun [~mbohun@202.124.72.52] has joined #scheme 23:44:31 -!- bweaver [~user@75-148-111-133-Chattanooga.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 23:48:23 -!- choas [~lars@p5792C2BD.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 23:48:46 rbarraud [~rbarraud@118-93-183-205.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has joined #scheme