00:00:08 imran_sr [~imran@75-18-254-4.lightspeed.uncyca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 00:00:41 The Pre-Scheme question works only if you insist on having Pre-Scheme code and AMACROs in the same module. 00:00:50 The fundamental problem with implicit phasing is that it conflates object-language and meta-language. This is the same problem that renders Common Lisp totally unfit for building large systems, and why Common Lisp systems such as CMUCL and (to a lesser extent -- initially requiring tremendous effort) SBCL are so unbelievably painful to bootstrap. 00:02:48 I do insist on that, jcowan: how else do I define Pre-Scheme macros? In Pre-Scheme, (require foo) when foo has `#lang scheme' is a non-starter. 00:03:20 I'm holding off judgement on how to best integrate high and low-level languages. It seems having the low-level language dependent at all on the high-level one asks for bootstrapping problems, but I haven't done it myself yet. 00:03:24 (In pseudo-Racketoid-Pre-Scheme, anyway; a little more precisely: in a Pre-Scheme package, (open foo) when foo's package has (open scheme) is a non-starter.) 00:03:51 Either way, if I'm going to mix the two I want them to have separate namespaces and/or identifiers. 00:04:05 If we read Algol 60 for Pre-Scheme, how does that affect the argument? 00:04:32 High-level vs low-level is a little bit of a red herring. Instead of Pre-Scheme, you could take Racket's typed Scheme or lazy Scheme; or you could take those instead of the vanilla Scheme ordinarily used to implement macros. 00:04:34 I certainly do not want to write Algol 60 macros in Algol 60, but I may want to have them available there. 00:04:51 (Ignoring the lexical syntax issue, of course.) 00:05:01 e.g. I bootstrapped a fairly powerful macro-assembler with subroutines using Sassy, and simply kept all identifiers disjoint. 00:06:43 Well, then, is there any case for the "explicitly marked but implicitly phased" R6RS feature, where conforming programs must notate phases but implementations are free to ignore the notations? 00:06:51 I think not. 00:08:59 That's pretty silly. The phases should be respected and their respective environments separated. This is how the two actual implementations of hygienic macros with modules (Scheme48 and PLT Scheme) have done it for ten-ish and twenty-ish years, respectively, and they have done so successfully. 00:10:52 -!- Azuvix [~Azuvix@174-27-34-218.bois.qwest.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:12:32 There's also the practical issue where explicit phasing can be insanely expensive. 00:13:45 s/can be/is in all existing implementations 00:14:25 You mean where n modules are instantiated once apiece for each of the k phases of some m other modules, leading to O(k n m) module instantiations as in Racket? That may be an issue -- I don't know whether anyone has encountered a problem with that in Racket -- but you can also take Scheme48's approach where each module is instantiated at most once per image. 00:15:09 Have you encountered a problem with it in practice, or do you have evidence of problems with it in practice? 00:16:03 Or are you talking about a different issue? 00:16:12 I was talking about that. 00:21:38 How does talk of instantiating map into talk of visiting and invoking? 00:22:26 I think the problem with Racket is it conflates the two. 00:23:56 Now, if you'll excuse me an hour, I'm off to render gratitude unto an abstract deity for the day of frying, or something like that. 00:24:31 That's Freya. 00:24:33 Ray Kroc and his invention of McD's French fires? 00:24:40 *fries, even 00:24:43 Or Frigg, if you prefer your goddesses sharpened. 00:24:46 *foof* had a cat named Freja 00:29:11 -!- bzzbzz [~franco@modemcable240.34-83-70.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:29:40 foof: Given that WG2 is going to have explicit renaming as the standard low-level macro syntax, what do you think about adding implicit renaming as well? 00:30:49 implicit renaming is too slow 00:31:47 It's basically O(n^2) in your source code, which really adds up when you have a large code base. 00:32:06 I forgot, are we adding syntax-case as well? 00:33:38 No. 00:34:13 What makes implicit renaming slow? It's trivial to convert it to explicit renaming. 00:34:46 By making a rename pass over the body of the macro. 00:35:04 O(n) on each macro step is O(n^2) overall. 00:36:38 I wrote that up on the wiki or bug report somewhere... 00:37:40 do explicit-renaming systems really require you to use ,(rename blah) for each identifier in the template that you want to preserve hygiene for? 00:37:55 Yes. 00:38:02 and people don't think thats onerous? 00:38:22 That's where implicit-renaming is nice: you write ,(unrename blah) for each identifier you don't wnant to preserve hygiene for. 00:38:53 well.. i like racket's style where you just create a syntax identifier with a certain lexical scope 00:38:54 Implicit renaming is easily changed into explicit renaming at macro definition time, foof. 00:39:04 so you dont have to pollute your template with ugly expressions 00:40:26 The version I saw made a pass over the body of the macro. You could probably define it efficiently in terms of sc-macro-transformer. 00:40:55 But not in terms of explicit-renaming. 00:41:14 See http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/394 00:42:42 jcowan: Yes, that's the version I'm talking about, and it makes a separate pass over the expanded macro on every expansion. 00:43:05 Oh, I see, o(m*n) where m is the size of the macro and n is the number of times it's invoked. 00:43:16 But it's a compile-time-only cost. 00:43:26 So is C++ :(((((( 00:44:29 Quite so. 00:44:40 If you take the chibi definition of er-macro-transformer and reverse the use of the environments it should work. 00:44:43 Actually, not so; C++ imposes lots of hidden run-time costs too. 00:45:20 Chicken would need a similar core modification. It can't be done efficiently in terms of er-macro-transformer. 00:45:41 Fair enough; I misunderstood the description. 00:48:20 jonrafkind: Depending on the macro, either implicit or explicit can be much clearer. 00:49:01 clearer than using syntax objects? 00:49:15 Clearer than one or the other. 00:49:17 i personally don't like to use unquote in my macros, so both look ugly to me 00:49:56 Well, sure, when you can use it syntax-rules is the prettiest. 00:50:27 even in syntax-case 00:50:32 i dont use syntax-rules all that much 00:51:06 (with-syntax ([x ...] [y ...]) #'(... x ... y ...)) 00:51:10 no need for unquote 00:51:10 Term rewriting rule[sz] 00:51:54 also will r7rs not use syntax objects? it just uses s-expressions? 00:52:36 Right. 00:52:49 why isn't that a step backwards? 00:53:12 It's more portable. 00:53:25 It obeys Occam's Razor. 00:53:27 Any macro system can implement syntax-rules and ER> 00:54:17 *jcowan* never uses anything but syntax-rules. 00:54:54 well, half my macros are unhygienic so i end up using syntax-case a lot 00:55:12 i could see not minding how syntax-rules is implemented if you only usde syntax-rules 00:55:36 There are only one or two non-syntax-rules macros in chibi. 00:56:09 does it have some form for creating structs? 00:56:23 i mean, is that a macro, and if so, is it unhygienic? 00:56:44 oops gotta run, sorry 00:57:17 Genosh [~Genosh@80.Red-88-24-212.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 00:57:52 jonrafkind: yes, it implements srfi-99 which has optional name creation 01:01:17 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 01:05:38 foof: What do you think about adding cond-expand to ModulesShinn? 01:08:50 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-33-237.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 01:10:12 -!- brandelune [~suzume@pl571.nas982.takamatsu.nttpc.ne.jp] has quit [Quit: brandelune] 01:11:25 -!- pygospa [~pygospa@217.191.222.125] has quit [Disconnected by services] 01:11:35 TheRealPygo [~pygospa@217.191.206.93] has joined #scheme 01:14:11 I was going to let people vote on that separately... I'm not sure if adding it to an already accepted module is biased or not. 01:14:37 Oh, sure. 01:14:43 I was wondering what you personally think of it. 01:15:01 Oh, I definitely think we should add it. 01:15:30 Only at the module-description level, it should all resolve statically before even macros are expanded. 01:16:05 Yes, aboslutely. 01:16:41 The only values are feature identifiers and available module names, both of which are known before startup. 01:17:05 If we allow it in the module language *only*, then we get rid of any phasing problem around it. 01:17:53 Originally I was thinking about cond-include, but then I saw that cond-import was useful too (import it if you have it) 01:18:06 xwl [~user@117.79.235.216] has joined #scheme 01:18:14 http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/CondExpandCowan 01:20:54 oh, good, you're listing standard features 01:22:18 Sure. 01:23:03 I like EXACT-CLOSED and RATIOS. 01:24:36 Azuvix [~Azuvix@174-27-34-218.bois.qwest.net] has joined #scheme 01:31:38 somnium [~user@184.42.17.189] has joined #scheme 01:31:43 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 01:38:31 -!- somnium [~user@184.42.17.189] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:53:10 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 01:58:31 -!- pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 01:59:33 -!- Genosh [~Genosh@80.Red-88-24-212.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Quit: http://quasiquote.me] 02:13:26 bzzbzz [~franco@modemcable240.34-83-70.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 02:18:44 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 02:22:06 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-44.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 02:34:49 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:34:51 Zot! 02:36:17 Zut! 02:37:06 Zut? When did you become French? 02:41:04 J'pas Francais, fortunately. Niemals. 02:43:44 Fare [~Fare@64.119.159.126] has joined #scheme 02:47:45 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 02:49:53 So which sense of "Zot!" are you employing here? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zot may be useful. 02:53:27 -!- dfkjjkfd [~paulh@183-15-ftth.onsnetstudenten.nl] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 02:54:36 It is the fifth metasyntactic variable in the canonical sequence. 02:57:53 What's the fourth? And how many are there? 02:58:42 *franki^* only knew three 02:59:04 Well, knows. But I didn't even suspect that there were more 02:59:49 Foo, bar, baz, quux, and zot; and then, in a separate group, mumble and frotz. 03:00:19 Ah, I have seen quux before, but I didn't realise it was canonical 03:13:24 -!- bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has quit [Quit: nighty night] 03:16:16 Of course, other languages have different canonical sequences. 03:16:22 (natural languages, I mean) 03:16:43 I don't know what they are in Irish, alas. 03:16:45 -!- tupi [~david@186.205.37.15] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:17:02 I don't know what they are in any language but English. 03:17:29 Do you wish to be informed? 03:17:34 *jcowan* is trying to control his GAS 03:17:43 Sure. 03:17:45 GAS? 03:18:24 Geek Answer Syndrome, the tendency to answer questions whether or not they have actually been asked. 03:18:41 Like Male Answer Syndrome, except that the GASser actually cares if the answers are correct. 03:19:04 I see. 03:19:07 In French they are toto, titi, and either (tata tutu) or (tutu tata), depending on personal taste. 03:19:16 (Zut!) 03:19:25 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 03:19:31 *foof* looks up the Japanese meta-syntactic variables for the first time 03:19:53 In Italian, pippo, pluto, paperino (Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck) 03:19:54 The programmers in my lab just used the foo, bar, ... sequence. 03:20:13 And in Dutch they are something else, but I forget what. 03:20:24 Apparently you can also use hoge, piyo, fuga, hogera. 03:21:29 Adamant [~Adamant@c-68-51-145-83.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:21:29 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@c-68-51-145-83.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host] 03:21:29 Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has joined #scheme 03:21:32 Wikipedia tells me that using wibble, wobble and wubble is a British thing 03:21:42 Sounds right. 03:21:53 I thought they were normal :) 03:22:07 There is a sequence of Spanish names analogous to John Doe and Richard Roe, and I think they are used as MSVs when lowercased. 03:22:38 Wibble, wobble, wubble, and wensleydale, surely. 03:24:04 *jcowan* laughs that the Spanish for "Anonymous Coward" is "Pendejo sin nombre" 03:25:00 "dumbass without a name"? 03:25:56 More or less. 03:26:15 Pendejo means big testicles, but the implication is not of courage but of oxhood. 03:26:23 or not ox-, bullhood. 03:26:55 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 03:27:19 I thought pendejo meant `pubic hair' 03:27:32 "Big hanging ones", most literally 03:27:39 pender = to dangel 03:27:43 dangle, even 03:28:02 Interesting 03:29:31 Here we are. Fulano, Mengano, Zutano, and Perengano, the Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Dave of hispanophones. 03:29:52 But they're not alphabetical :/ 03:30:03 But these are surnames and can be outfitted with appropriate given names 03:30:41 What about Eve, Mallory, and Trent? 03:30:50 Ya got me there. 03:31:07 A *very* strange thing happened on license-review@opensource.org recently. 03:31:26 Oh? 03:31:29 I had already exhausted A, B, C, D, E, and F on examples for Bruce Perens, so I went on to Gale and Henri. 03:31:49 I then got a letter from a certain Henri, saying that he and Gale had worked with Perens some years back. 03:32:04 I don't know which of us was more weirded out. 03:32:53 Interesting. Receiving a letter is indeed pretty weird these days! 03:33:01 You should've used Guthlac. 03:33:06 By 'letter' I mean email. 03:33:10 Gale's the name of my wife. 03:33:50 -!- Azuvix [~Azuvix@174-27-34-218.bois.qwest.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:34:01 There's also Peggy and Victor. 03:35:39 *jcowan* chuckles at "Ivan Horvat", the John Doe of Croatia (literally "John the Croat") 03:41:03 Wow, the Japanese version is really dated. 03:42:29 jcowan_ [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 03:42:51 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:45:20 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:46:57 -!- jcowan_ is now known as jcowan 03:52:50 timj_ [~timj@e176198076.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #scheme 03:53:36 necroforest [~jarred@pool-108-18-226-169.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 03:55:59 saccade [~saccade@209-6-54-113.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 03:56:05 -!- timj [~timj@e176194102.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 04:00:39 -!- copumpkin [~pumpkin@unaffiliated/pumpkingod] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 04:04:41 mELs [~user@117.84.180.137] has joined #scheme 04:05:40 -!- mELs [~user@117.84.180.137] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:17:51 -!- masm [~masm@bl19-150-206.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 04:19:43 -!- xwl [~user@117.79.235.216] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:21:15 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 04:24:11 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-44.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:32:46 lewis1711 [~lewis@125-239-10-84.jetstream.xtra.co.nz] has joined #scheme 04:34:31 I have decided to become a smug lisp weenie 04:37:22 blasphemy! 04:42:26 is scheme not considered a lisp? if i am going to be a weenie I need to get this right 04:49:56 somesmlusingpers [~somesmlus@jesus.roamr.utk.edu] has joined #scheme 04:54:27 not sure myself, i always though scheme was lisp 04:54:31 thought* 04:54:38 but now it turns out scheme is a dialect of lisp 04:54:52 or if you ask #lisp, they'll say it's not lisp at all 04:58:46 oh i have heard of that channel 05:00:27 is it normal to not be able to define things in the REPL? 05:04:00 No. 05:04:14 "jcowan: It obeys Occam's Razor." 05:04:23 "[jcowan never uses anything but syntax-rules.]" 05:04:41 weird 05:05:22 Looks like Scheme will slash its wrists with the razor jcowan hands it. 05:07:08 what is the '(x y z) thing? i would google for it but you know 05:17:54 ' means RETURN THIS BACK LITERALLY, DON'T FSCK WITH IT 05:18:21 don't mutate it? 05:18:57 Don't do anything with it 05:19:01 don't eval it 05:19:18 just give it back New In Box A+++ Would Do Business Again 05:19:28 lewis1711: Anyway it sounds like it's time for you to get a book 05:19:42 how would i look up ' in a book? 05:19:55 maybe just read the book 05:19:57 and you'll learn 05:20:19 lewis1711: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html 05:20:21 enjoy! 05:21:11 I've always failed to learn from books. though I have been trying to go through that one 05:31:51 -!- mmc [~michal@cs27120227.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:31:59 wash [~wash@76-231-175-122.lightspeed.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 05:32:35 I'm having some trouble understanding how the pattern for when is matching in this snippet 05:32:38 http://codepad.org/hCZvWTDK 05:33:38 Can you be more specific, wash? 05:33:48 Yah, trying to think of how to phrase it 05:34:23 I don't get why the invocation of when in the body of the let-syntax matches the pattern 05:34:45 Well, what is the mismatch you expect? 05:36:05 It seems like (when if (set! if 'now)) doesn't have enough arguments to me. 05:37:20 Doesn't that pattern require three or more elements of input? 05:37:51 No -- `stmt2 ...' means zero or more, not one or more. 05:38:18 Ah 05:38:33 I thought just `...' meant zero or more 05:38:36 thanks 05:38:47 how would I create a new list by adding one to a serries of numbers? attempting >(map + '(1) '(1 2 3)) 05:39:00 `...' applies to the preceding pattern. 05:39:19 what is that operator called, I need to look it up then 05:39:36 Thank you Riastradh 05:39:55 So you could even write a pattern such as (zot (x (y) (z) ...) ...); can you come up with some examples of inputs matching this pattern? 05:40:16 lewis1711: really, read a book 05:40:27 watch youtube videos 05:40:55 i recommend 61a lectures from berkeley 05:40:57 lewis1711, perhaps you are looking for what is often called REDUCE. 05:41:12 see in the time you just took to tell me to RTFM, you could have just told me what to do. 05:41:20 Riastradh: perhaps so. ty 05:41:35 lewis1711: yeah but then you're going to ask more questions 05:41:38 all of which are in the manual 05:41:57 asking questions? on a #lang?! well I never! 05:42:11 you're asking very basic questions 05:42:34 you're asking "what is this". Compare to wash's question: "why does this work in this way" 05:42:42 I even stated my problem before. it's very difficult to google for ' 05:42:53 Riastradh: (zot (1 (21) (3) (17) (12)) (5 (6) (6))) 05:42:57 It's very easy to google "sicp" 05:42:58 Right? 05:43:01 troll 05:43:25 so you want me to go through a whole text book which isn't really about scheme, to find a single operator, instead of telling me the name of that operator? 05:43:38 `What is a name for this pattern?' is different from `What is the meaning of this name?', Quadrescence. Reference manuals and Google seldom help with the former; they usually help only with the latter. 05:44:09 Riastradh: in the case of patters, yeah 05:44:18 -!- somesmlusingpers [~somesmlus@jesus.roamr.utk.edu] has left #scheme 05:44:23 wash, sure. How about a. (zot), b. (zot (1)), and c. (zot (1 ((((2))))))? 05:44:27 Riastradh: actually you're right, I mixed the two up 05:45:37 a is fine, b won't work, and c works, I think. 05:45:58 *wash* is native to C languages :p 05:46:07 Yep. 05:46:15 what is the '(elements) operator, called then? so I may look it up in TFM 05:46:39 lewis1711, '( is short form for quote 05:46:41 It is equivalent to writing (quote (elements)), lewis1711. 05:47:35 ty 05:48:01 In general, for any S-expression X, writing 'X is equivalent to writing (quote X). (This applies in just about any Lisp since 1970.) In Scheme, but not in Emacs Lisp or Common Lisp, writing `X is equivalent to writing (quasiquote X), ,X to (unquote X), and ,@X to (unquote-splicing X). 06:01:54 *cky* blows a raspberry at Quadrescence for being never mentioning that ' is shorthand for quote. 06:02:16 Quadrescence: For lewis1711, that would have been the most helpful answer. 06:02:30 s/being// 06:02:35 For lewis1711, reading a book would be most helpful 06:02:53 A book? Any book? Even ones written by Herbert Schildt? 06:03:07 yea 06:03:18 (note I did provide a link) 06:03:39 SICP isn't the most appropriate book for everybody. Different strokes for different folks. 06:04:06 *cky* sends Quadrescence a book written by Herbert Schildt. :-P 06:04:26 sicp is pretty appropriate for everyone 06:04:28 SICP is a good book. i just feel like bashing out some code, and finding out how it learns that way. In generaly I learn bettter by just diving in head first. if you can't handle me asking noob questions, I suggest ignoring me:P 06:04:31 since it will make most people think 06:04:56 nilg [~user@85.239.138.109] has joined #scheme 06:05:05 lewis1711: that way of learning tends to just instill your old ways of doing things 06:05:12 "let me try writing this program as I would in python" 06:05:50 I'd like to see scheme that looks like python:P 06:05:59 lewis1711: SRFI 49. :-) 06:06:57 I mainly want to learn functional programming. I keep trying to in languages that aren't very functional. also I like s expressions. /life-story 06:07:17 lewis1711: You're just fine. Don't worry about Quadrescence. 06:07:53 lol 06:08:02 SICP is great. 06:08:25 wash: I agree, but SICP is primarily a book about learning to program, not so much directly about learning Scheme. 06:09:31 also about learning Scheme, but not focused on it 06:10:02 cky: it's what we've been working off of for our scheme(ish) implementation at Boost. 06:10:14 gross 06:10:40 Boost, as in C++? Or some other kind of Boost? :-P 06:10:55 Yes. 06:11:10 ...I didn't know C++ Boost has anything to do with Scheme(ish). 06:11:21 -!- Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has left #scheme 06:11:30 Boost.Spirit, specifically. 06:11:36 Oh, good fun. :-) 06:11:40 *cky* always meant to learn that. 06:12:00 It's part of a, quote, "half-baked idea from Boostcon '10" 06:12:08 I...wanted to write a GolfScript interpreter, and use Boost.Spirit as its parser. :-P 06:12:17 Hahahahaha. 06:12:26 *cky* wants to attend a Boostcon. But, like, I don't live near Colorado. 06:12:56 I kicked myself for not knowing about Clojure Conj until a month afterward. 06:13:03 (It was hosted in Durham, NC, where I live.) 06:14:03 qu1j0t3 [~qu1j0t3@bas2-toronto10-2925235595.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #scheme 06:14:11 Quadrescence [~Quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has joined #scheme 06:14:12 Basically, we're creating a tool for RAD spirit development, so we're bootstrapping "static spirit" into a s-expression language. We have a semi-complete scheme implementation built with the same framework. 06:15:48 Then eventually we write bindings to LLVM, and other craziness. We're lacking in macro support, thus my question. 06:15:55 That's too awesome. 06:16:22 *lewis1711* <3's LLVM 06:16:56 I actually want to try writing an implementation that targets Parrot, just to see how it stacks up against the various LLVM implementations. 06:17:06 That's in the works, too. 06:17:11 Fancy. :-) 06:17:24 is parrot stable yet? 06:17:26 ...is this for work, or is it a personal project? If the former, I need to hear about this. :-P 06:17:29 lewis1711: Yes. 06:18:16 hmmm. the king of virtual machines for me has to be Luas, though i have a limitedl understanding of them 06:18:29 ...you mean it's not HotSpot? :-O 06:18:55 cky: I'm a Boost developer. This is all part of a new Spirit library. 06:19:18 *cky* bows. 06:19:48 That's too awesome. 06:20:18 One thing I want to play with is to see if I can pull HotSpot apart and make it into a VM for Scheme rather than Java. 06:20:32 We have a parser, lexer, and generator; the new library provides a generic AST and a backend framework. 06:20:57 cky, I've given such a thing consideration as well. 06:21:41 Nice, nice. :-) 06:23:10 I don't think it's feasible because of the nature of the Java language, makes more sense to me to start from scratch and draw ideas from HotSpot, Parrot and LLVM. 06:23:36 If the goal would be implementing a modern VM ideal for Scheme. 06:24:42 scheme for the Lua VM! ^_^ though only if it then got Luas awesome C API 06:25:03 The implementation strategies of the Lua VM aren't suitable for Scheme. 06:25:07 *nods* 06:25:25 how's that? 06:25:31 On the other hand, Lua can run on a Scheme VM without too much trouble. The Chibi VM will one day support both. 06:26:11 lewis1711: (Approximate answer) Because a Lua coroutine can only exit to its caller, whereas in Scheme any coroutine can exit to any other coroutine. 06:26:19 ^ 06:26:55 In Scheme terms, Lua coroutines are one-shot continuations, whereas Scheme can call a captured continuation any number of times. 06:26:59 ah 06:27:10 The ideal VM for Scheme has to be VM that has been designed with consideration given to Scheme-style continuations from the beginning. 06:27:31 That sentence was somewhat nonsensical, sorry. 06:29:06 I am always a fan of implementations/languages that can play nicely with C code if need be, because it is in the latin of programming IMO 06:29:18 lewis1711: doesn't work here. 06:29:42 here? 06:29:47 The calling conventions are fundamentally different in an ideal world. 06:30:18 By here, I meant Scheme. 06:31:10 Essentially all Schemes play well with C. 06:31:55 -!- qu1j0t3 [~qu1j0t3@bas2-toronto10-2925235595.dsl.bell.ca] has left #scheme 06:32:01 Some of them, in fact, translate Scheme into C -- usually rather funky C. 06:32:06 Right 06:32:15 has to be funky because C lacks coroutines 06:32:27 Well, lack isn't the right word. 06:34:29 well I am using gambit C right now, just incase I ever feel like interfacing with the wider world 06:34:37 *gambit scheme 06:36:50 There are 2.5 basic approaches: put Scheme stack frames on the heap (where the first generation of the heap may in fact be the C stack), or copy the C stack around. 06:37:48 what is approach number 2.5 then?:P 06:38:04 There's nothing wrong with Scheme implementations that use C as an IR, but it's not ideal because C language compilers aren't designed with functional LISP languages in mind. 06:38:13 The area where Scheme continuations are stored need not be the same as the area where other Scheme data are stored. 06:41:05 I was going to say 3, but "stacks on the heap" and "stack is a heap" are reallyl variants. 06:41:13 So you can say 2 or 3 methods, and I took the average. :-) 06:41:28 hmmm i think I somewhat get the quote function now. because in scheme, by default, everything is an expression, it's handy to have something where data isn't evaluted on the spot, like when passing into other function 06:41:40 *another function 06:41:43 Right. 06:42:39 Which is why you only need to quote symbols (so they are not interpreted as variables) and lists (so they are not interpreted as syntax or function calls). You actually have to quote vectors too, but I know of no principled reason for that. 06:43:02 You do not have to quote numbers or characters or strings. 06:43:25 what do you mean by "interpreted as syntax" for lists? 06:43:30 lewis1711: 06:43:48 (if a b c) is not a call on an "if" procedure; it is syntax. 06:44:17 a procedure is (operator operand ...) in scheme, 06:44:58 You know it is syntax because you know a certain set of names are syntax keywords. You can add your own syntax keywords as well, unlike most languages. 06:45:59 not seeing the distinction here. I'll come back to that late 06:46:03 *later 06:49:05 homoiconicity can be a bit confusing at first, lewis1711. 06:49:45 yes, as can that word;) does anyone here know ruby, btw? it has a seemingly similar thing called symbols, as like in scheme everything evaluates to an expression 06:49:57 The point is that (if (= x y) (display "yes") (display "no")) is not a procedure call; if it were, "x" and "y" would be displayed before the procedure is called. 06:50:05 Yes, Scheme has symbols like Ruby's. 06:50:32 Isn't ruby based on scheme, or inspired by it (in part)? 06:50:37 In part. 06:50:49 scheme, smalltalk and perl as I understand it 06:51:03 *wash* eyerolls at mention of perl 06:51:16 it's one of my favourite languages to date 06:51:27 ruby, not perl. have never used perl 06:55:02 I do see a few ruby-scheme similarities already. the use of ! for functions that mutate their parameters, for example 06:57:52 And ? for predicates (procedures returning booleans). 06:58:17 *jcowan* is bi: he likes both Scheme and Perl 06:59:39 jcowan: yeah. I miss those in languages that don't allow them 06:59:40 ha 07:00:14 after a while in a gambit scheme session, I seem to lose the ability to use the define function. I might try how mit-scheme treats me 07:00:33 Yah, that's an annoyance to me because my C++ counterparts to scheme procedures can't have ! or ? in their names 07:00:37 *cky* is in the same boat as jcowan, re Scheme and Perl. 07:06:33 define is also syntax, lewis1711. 07:07:59 mmc [~michal@cs181181164.pp.htv.fi] has joined #scheme 07:08:41 But it is not an expression. 07:09:23 jcowan: is that a clue to my gambit interpreter define fail mystery? 07:09:47 Not particularly, no. Just hammering home the point that some (... .... ....) are not procedure calls. 07:10:36 hmm. still not getting the distinction between syntax and procedure calls 07:12:19 -!- mmc [~michal@cs181181164.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 07:14:08 (define x 32) is not a call on a procedure named 'define', for the simple reason that procedure calls evaluate their arguments, and define does not care what the value of x is, or even if it has one. 07:18:53 is assigning to x not evaluating it? 07:21:09 (+ x 32) evaluates x, because + is a procedure 07:21:19 (define x 32) does not evaluate x, or even care if it has a value. 07:21:44 (+ (this) (that)) calls the this and that procedures and adds the results. 07:22:19 (if p (this) (that)) evaluates p and then decides whether to call this or that (but never both) 07:22:31 yeah I just tried (define x 3) (define x 4) and it lets you rebind. which I find a little odd, as I thought define was for constants 07:22:52 No, define is for defining the value of a name. 07:23:44 -!- offby1 [~user@pdpc/supporter/monthlybyte/offby1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:27:29 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 07:29:43 There is no explicit way to declare a constant in Scheme; it's generally left up to the Scheme system to notice if a name is constant or not. 07:31:12 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 07:33:00 adu [~ajr@pool-173-66-11-168.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 07:35:41 how would the scheme system notice if you don't declare it? 07:35:50 hi lewis1711 07:35:59 hello adu 07:36:09 scheme is all-knowing and all-powerful 07:36:16 o rly 07:36:22 ya 07:36:44 It sees if you assign it a new value, and if not, it's a constant, eh? 07:36:59 ha 07:37:15 This is typically relevant for local variables. 07:39:41 (set! all-knowledge ()) 07:40:22 you aren't supposed to redefine a symbol policy 07:41:39 then why have set! at all 07:45:24 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/526082/in-scheme-whats-the-point-of-set o i c 07:49:59 define allocates a new location, binds a name to it, and puts the value into the location. set! changes the value in the location bound to the name. 07:52:41 Adamant [~Adamant@c-68-51-145-83.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 07:52:41 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@c-68-51-145-83.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host] 07:52:41 Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has joined #scheme 07:53:19 that's a rather subtle difference though 08:00:07 -!- Adamant [~Adamant@unaffiliated/adamant] has quit [Quit: Adamant] 08:03:47 Not really. It's the difference between declaring a variable and assigning to a variable. 08:04:14 i think that's a big difference 08:04:26 femtoo [~femto@95-89-197-196-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 08:09:40 -!- femtoo [~femto@95-89-197-196-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:14:33 kenjin2201 [~kenjin@211.108.125.215] has joined #scheme 08:29:33 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 08:38:43 -!- lewis1711 [~lewis@125-239-10-84.jetstream.xtra.co.nz] has left #scheme 09:01:25 jewel [~jewel@196-210-134-67.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 09:06:48 -!- TheRealPygo is now known as pygospa 09:20:57 Dawgmatix [~dman@203.187.211.82] has joined #scheme 09:25:01 mmc [~michal@cs181181164.pp.htv.fi] has joined #scheme 09:33:35 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [Quit: leaving] 09:34:07 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-98-14-172-204.nyc.res.rr.com] has left #scheme 09:34:10 pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #scheme 09:35:25 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 09:36:52 pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has joined #scheme 09:44:18 Jafet [~Jafet@142.247.48.60.kmr02-home.tm.net.my] has joined #scheme 09:44:19 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@142.247.48.60.kmr02-home.tm.net.my] has quit [Changing host] 09:44:19 Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has joined #scheme 09:53:05 -!- pygospa [~pygospa@217.191.206.93] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 09:56:29 -!- Caleb-- [thedude@109.64.6.190] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 10:12:33 -!- Fare [~Fare@64.119.159.126] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:12:41 -!- homie [~user@xdsl-78-35-151-217.netcologne.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 10:13:16 wbooze` [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 10:13:30 homie` [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 10:15:41 -!- wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-35-151-217.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 10:23:16 Oejet [~oejet@212.45.122.120] has joined #scheme 10:30:05 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp85-140-65-170.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 10:36:39 kar8nga [~kar8nga@m-47.vc-graz.ac.at] has joined #scheme 10:39:30 femtoo [~femto@95-89-197-196-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 10:52:21 stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has joined #scheme 11:00:31 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:01:22 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 11:01:24 pygospa [~pygospa@217.191.206.93] has joined #scheme 11:02:07 -!- pygospa [~pygospa@217.191.206.93] has quit [Client Quit] 11:03:19 pygospa [~pygospa@217.191.206.93] has joined #scheme 11:04:25 -!- jao [~user@75.Red-79-145-118.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 11:04:32 -!- Dawgmatix [~dman@203.187.211.82] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 11:19:58 -!- homie` [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 11:20:03 -!- wbooze` [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 11:23:19 wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 11:25:21 wbooze` [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 11:25:28 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-144-158-162.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 11:25:31 -!- wbooze` [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:26:50 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-144-158-162.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has left #scheme 11:27:22 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-144-158-162.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 11:27:48 churib [~tg@dslc-082-082-126-031.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 11:29:24 -!- wash [~wash@76-231-175-122.lightspeed.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 11:31:22 homie [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 11:37:17 -!- femtoo [~femto@95-89-197-196-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 11:39:44 kingping [~kp@95.70.90.137] has joined #scheme 11:39:46 Hello! 11:39:53 Hi! 11:48:41 femtoo [~femto@95-89-197-196-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 11:50:14 -!- adu [~ajr@pool-173-66-11-168.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 12:24:10 masm [~masm@bl15-74-205.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #scheme 12:30:13 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 12:35:11 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 12:43:06 -!- wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:43:06 -!- homie [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:59:09 mmc1 [~michal@cs27120227.pp.htv.fi] has joined #scheme 13:01:33 -!- imran_sr [~imran@75-18-254-4.lightspeed.uncyca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 13:04:02 -!- mmc [~michal@cs181181164.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 13:04:57 molbdnilo [~Ove@c80-216-195-64.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 13:13:07 nilg` [~user@85.239.138.109] has joined #scheme 13:17:05 -!- nilg [~user@85.239.138.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 13:18:12 -!- leo2007 [~leo@cpc1-cmbg13-0-0-cust596.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Quit: rcirc on GNU Emacs 23.2.90.2] 13:18:34 leo2007 [~leo@cpc1-cmbg13-0-0-cust596.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com] has joined #scheme 13:19:11 dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 13:29:07 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 13:33:58 HG` [~HG@85.8.91.162] has joined #scheme 13:34:35 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 13:34:55 bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has joined #scheme 13:35:18 nowhereman [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-44-202.w92-148.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #scheme 13:35:23 -!- nowhere_man [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-67-83.w92-141.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 13:35:32 tupi [~david@186.205.37.15] has joined #scheme 13:44:14 Genosh [~Genosh@80.Red-88-24-212.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 13:47:28 copumpkin [~pumpkin@209-6-62-204.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 13:47:28 -!- copumpkin [~pumpkin@209-6-62-204.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Changing host] 13:47:28 copumpkin [~pumpkin@unaffiliated/pumpkingod] has joined #scheme 13:52:15 -!- kenjin2201 [~kenjin@211.108.125.215] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 13:54:27 -!- churib [~tg@dslc-082-082-126-031.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 14:06:11 kenjin2201 [~kenjin@211.108.125.215] has joined #scheme 14:09:31 -!- Genosh [~Genosh@80.Red-88-24-212.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:16:28 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp85-140-65-170.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:17:20 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:19:02 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 14:20:22 sku [~sk@93.190.178.82] has joined #scheme 14:23:38 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 14:25:03 AtnNn [~welcome@173.177.239.60] has joined #scheme 14:25:18 wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 14:28:12 dfkjjkfd [~paulh@183-15-ftth.onsnetstudenten.nl] has joined #scheme 14:36:07 homie [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 14:47:00 Caleb-- [thedude@109.64.6.190] has joined #scheme 14:47:17 -!- sku [~sk@93.190.178.82] has left #scheme 14:54:15 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@173.177.239.60] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 15:02:13 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 15:07:19 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 15:07:27 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 15:12:44 nmg [~nick@dsl78-143-210-1.in-addr.fast.co.uk] has joined #scheme 15:12:54 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:12:59 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 15:14:14 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-144-158-162.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has left #scheme 15:18:14 -!- kingping [~kp@95.70.90.137] has quit [Quit: Vale.] 15:25:15 -!- jewel [~jewel@196-210-134-67.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:02:31 -!- kenjin2201 [~kenjin@211.108.125.215] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 16:12:26 -!- em [~em@unaffiliated/emma] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 16:14:22 -!- nilg` [~user@85.239.138.109] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:20:46 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 16:26:20 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 16:26:56 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 16:39:06 -!- kar8nga [~kar8nga@m-47.vc-graz.ac.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:46:07 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 16:47:10 AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 16:53:00 -!- chemuduguntar [~ravi@118-93-176-141.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 16:54:28 mmc [~michal@cs181181164.pp.htv.fi] has joined #scheme 17:10:53 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 17:11:16 -!- mmc [~michal@cs181181164.pp.htv.fi] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:16:09 -!- ASau [~user@95-28-62-161.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:18:12 emma [~em@unaffiliated/emma] has joined #scheme 17:18:52 ASau [~user@95-28-62-161.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 17:25:50 -!- Oejet [~oejet@212.45.122.120] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 17:26:06 Oejet [~oejet@212.45.122.120] has joined #scheme 17:29:06 Dawgmatix [~dman@203.187.211.82] has joined #scheme 17:40:17 churib [~tg@dslc-082-082-119-140.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 17:42:34 Maxels [Maxel@137.28.155.60] has joined #scheme 17:42:55 -!- Maxels [Maxel@137.28.155.60] has left #scheme 17:45:10 -!- HG` [~HG@85.8.91.162] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 17:45:10 zarchne [~michael@209.40.67.38] has joined #scheme 17:46:58 -!- rdd` is now known as rdd 17:51:46 Too bad lewis1711 ain't here right now. It'd be easy to construct an example demonstrating what's different between define and set!. (Well, at least with regard to internal defines.) 17:52:33 I wonder if anybody has written a Guile bot. There are some very amusing things I can do with Guile that cannot be done with any other Scheme implementation. 17:55:16 For example, in Guile, syntaxes are first-class. You could, for example, do: (define ! define) (! @ lambda) (map (@ (i) (expt i i)) (iota 10)) 17:56:28 ASau` [~user@95-26-92-102.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 17:58:14 That sounds terrible 17:58:22 Are they lexically scoped? 17:58:34 -!- ASau [~user@95-28-62-161.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:59:46 -!- ASau` [~user@95-26-92-102.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 18:01:54 ASau` [~user@95-26-92-249.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 18:11:02 ASau`` [~user@95-27-197-147.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 18:15:03 -!- Euthydemus [~euthydemu@vaxjo7.80.cust.blixtvik.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 18:15:33 cky, That's not true anymore for the 1.9.x, 2.0 Guile 18:15:41 -!- ASau` [~user@95-26-92-249.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 18:16:33 Euthydemus [~euthydemu@vaxjo7.80.cust.blixtvik.net] has joined #scheme 18:19:39 -!- ASau`` is now known as ASau 18:21:55 -!- Dawgmatix [~dman@203.187.211.82] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 18:30:47 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-33-57.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 18:33:17 -!- churib [~tg@dslc-082-082-119-140.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 18:42:34 somnium [~user@184.42.17.189] has joined #scheme 18:49:37 -!- pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1503031474.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 18:51:54 dsmith: Oh noes! :-P 18:57:37 jao [~jao@164.pool85-50-244.dynamic.orange.es] has joined #scheme 18:58:07 -!- 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] 18:58:40 saccade [~saccade@209-6-54-113.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 19:01:14 -!- Jafet [~Jafet@unaffiliated/jafet] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:11:55 -!- dfkjjkfd [~paulh@183-15-ftth.onsnetstudenten.nl] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 19:19:36 araujo [~araujo@190.38.50.25] has joined #scheme 19:19:36 -!- araujo [~araujo@190.38.50.25] has quit [Changing host] 19:19:36 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 19:25:43 -!- femtoo [~femto@95-89-197-196-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 19:37:34 chemuduguntar [~ravi@118-92-3-79.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz] has joined #scheme 19:46:22 -!- molbdnilo [~Ove@c80-216-195-64.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:46:46 molbdnilo [~Ove@c80-216-195-64.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 19:48:53 -!- Intensity [z1STYHpvh3@unaffiliated/intensity] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 19:51:44 Intensity [kXALUkxmEn@unaffiliated/intensity] has joined #scheme 20:10:09 -!- emma is now known as em 20:16:37 -!- aoh [~aki@80.75.102.51] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 20:23:03 aoh [aki@80.75.102.51] has joined #scheme 20:35:40 -!- leo2007 [~leo@cpc1-cmbg13-0-0-cust596.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 20:49:06 schmir [~schmir@p54A901E0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 21:00:27 kaemo [~mad5ci@d38-66.icpnet.pl] has joined #scheme 21:01:38 Maxels [~Maxel@99.160.139.76] has joined #scheme 21:01:59 -!- Maxels [~Maxel@99.160.139.76] has left #scheme 21:13:11 -!- schmir [~schmir@p54A901E0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:18:26 -!- kaemo [~mad5ci@d38-66.icpnet.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 21:21:46 kaemo [~mad5ci@d38-66.icpnet.pl] has joined #scheme 21:21:55 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:41:40 -!- githogori [~githogori@adsl-66-123-22-146.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:09:19 kar8nga [~kar8nga@j-185.vc-graz.ac.at] has joined #scheme 22:10:52 mejja [~chatzilla@c-b4b5e555.023-82-73746f38.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has joined #scheme 22:10:56 -!- molbdnilo [~Ove@c80-216-195-64.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 22:15:55 rudybot: Vive la Julian Assanger! 22:15:55 mejja: backquote? 22:16:11 ... 22:23:35 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 22:24:37 homie` [~user@xdsl-78-35-154-32.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 22:24:46 wbooze` [~user@xdsl-78-35-154-32.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 22:26:13 -!- homie` [~user@xdsl-78-35-154-32.netcologne.de] has quit [Client Quit] 22:26:20 -!- wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:26:25 -!- wbooze` [~user@xdsl-78-35-154-32.netcologne.de] has quit [Client Quit] 22:26:43 -!- homie [~user@xdsl-78-35-146-162.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:29:04 homie [~user@xdsl-78-35-154-32.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 22:32:13 wbooze [~user@xdsl-78-35-154-32.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 22:35:42 Azuvix [~Azuvix@174-27-34-218.bois.qwest.net] has joined #scheme 22:45:11 churib [~tg@dslc-082-082-119-140.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 22:51:33 -!- stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:53:13 -!- mejja [~chatzilla@c-b4b5e555.023-82-73746f38.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.12/20101026210630]] 23:05:00 -!- jao [~jao@164.pool85-50-244.dynamic.orange.es] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:10:29 -!- nmg [~nick@dsl78-143-210-1.in-addr.fast.co.uk] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 23:20:04 -!- kar8nga [~kar8nga@j-185.vc-graz.ac.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:22:51 jao [~jao@164.pool85-50-244.dynamic.orange.es] has joined #scheme 23:24:06 davazp [~user@36.Red-79-153-149.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 23:44:00 -!- AtnNn [~welcome@modemcable060.239-177-173.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Quit: g2g] 23:44:37 pnkfelix [~Adium@c-71-225-45-140.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:50:21 dfkjjkfd [~paulh@145.120.22.32] has joined #scheme 23:55:27 -!- em is now known as emma