00:09:10 cafesofie [~cafesofie@ool-18b97779.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #scheme 00:10:57 -!- atomx [~user@86.35.150.23] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:11:57 -!- samth is now known as samth_away 00:12:14 bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has joined #scheme 00:13:44 -!- rins [~user@173-162-214-174-NewEngland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:13:53 rins [~user@173-162-214-174-NewEngland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #scheme 00:16:49 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 00:19:59 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 00:21:28 dnolen [~davidnole@184.152.69.75] has joined #scheme 00:34:42 I just realized that the whole racket repo has a ton of stuff way more then I ever expected 00:35:47 EM03: probably more than you could digest in a lifetime. :-( 00:38:40 -!- tauntaun [~Crumpet@ool-44c72ce0.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 01:01:13 X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has joined #scheme 01:03:49 -!- mathk [~mathk@lns-bzn-49f-81-56-212-79.adsl.proxad.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 01:04:29 mathk [~mathk@lns-bzn-49f-81-56-212-79.adsl.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 01:08:16 -!- Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:10:33 Riastradh [debian-tor@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 01:15:15 -!- Euthydemus [~euthydemu@vaxjo4.213.cust.blixtvik.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 01:16:18 Euthydemus [~euthydemu@vaxjo4.213.cust.blixtvik.net] has joined #scheme 01:26:46 erjiang [~erjiang@2001:18e8:2:244:213:72ff:fe81:718c] has joined #scheme 01:31:28 -!- ckrailo [~ckrailo@208.86.167.249] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 01:37:51 saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has joined #scheme 01:40:39 jrt4 [~jrtaylori@207-118-45-56.dyn.centurytel.net] has joined #scheme 01:43:33 -!- bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has quit [Quit: Goodbye.] 01:48:32 aidalgol [~user@202.36.179.68] has joined #scheme 01:49:04 -!- xwl_ [~user@nat/nokia/x-slnqncpjxvukqljb] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:50:17 -!- Nisstyre [~nisstyre@infocalypse-net.info] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 02:03:25 -!- saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:05:33 Nisstyre [~nisstyre@infocalypse-net.info] has joined #scheme 02:10:07 -!- kniu [~kniu@DOHOHO.RES.CMU.EDU] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:11:27 EM03_ [~dfsdfdsf@cpe-65-186-205-111.insight.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 02:11:27 -!- EM03_ [~dfsdfdsf@cpe-65-186-205-111.insight.res.rr.com] has quit [Changing host] 02:11:27 EM03_ [~dfsdfdsf@unaffiliated/em03] has joined #scheme 02:11:28 xwl_ [~user@nat/nokia/x-oxemmfenpqeogdqn] has joined #scheme 02:12:42 -!- EM03 [~dfsdfdsf@unaffiliated/em03] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 02:12:43 -!- EM03_ is now known as EM03 02:12:50 -!- Tasyne [~not4u@c-24-22-232-230.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 02:16:26 Tasyne [~not4u@c-24-22-232-230.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 02:27:35 -!- erjiang [~erjiang@2001:18e8:2:244:213:72ff:fe81:718c] has quit [Quit: ttfn] 02:28:14 XTL [~XTL@dsl-olubrasgw2-fe6af800-251.dhcp.inet.fi] has joined #scheme 02:29:44 erjiang [~erjiang@2001:18e8:2:244:213:72ff:fe81:718c] has joined #scheme 02:29:47 -!- erjiang [~erjiang@2001:18e8:2:244:213:72ff:fe81:718c] has quit [Client Quit] 02:36:07 -!- elly [debian-tor@atheme/member/elly] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 02:37:36 jonrafkind [~jon@jonr5.dsl.xmission.com] has joined #scheme 02:40:45 erjiang [~erjiang@7.80.244.66.jest.smithvilledigital.net] has joined #scheme 02:41:09 -!- erjiang [~erjiang@7.80.244.66.jest.smithvilledigital.net] has quit [Client Quit] 02:51:47 elly [debian-tor@atheme/member/elly] has joined #scheme 02:52:14 leo2007 [~leo@123.114.52.195] has joined #scheme 02:52:51 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has left #scheme 02:59:41 -!- pnkfelix [~Adium@c-68-82-87-23.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 03:00:09 -!- aidalgol [~user@202.36.179.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 03:00:25 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-146-140.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 03:01:58 fantazo [~fantazo@178-190-237-204.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has joined #scheme 03:12:41 saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has joined #scheme 03:14:53 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 03:15:05 superjudge [~superjudg@c83-250-110-188.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 03:16:58 -!- dnolen [~davidnole@184.152.69.75] has quit [Quit: dnolen] 03:18:10 -!- rpg [~rpg@216.243.156.16.real-time.com] has quit [Quit: rpg] 03:20:38 -!- infid [~infid@99-101-15-134.lightspeed.sndgca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 03:21:14 -!- saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 03:22:05 infid [~infid@rrcs-173-198-12-38.west.biz.rr.com] has joined #scheme 03:23:30 saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has joined #scheme 03:31:02 -!- superjudge [~superjudg@c83-250-110-188.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Quit: superjudge] 03:33:24 -!- XTL [~XTL@dsl-olubrasgw2-fe6af800-251.dhcp.inet.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 03:38:23 XTL [~XTL@dsl-olubrasgw2-fe6af800-251.dhcp.inet.fi] has joined #scheme 03:41:52 -!- Counterspell [~cspell@38.98.50.98] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 03:45:59 -!- az [~az@p4FE4ED77.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 03:52:42 az [~az@p5796C023.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 04:17:04 superjudge [~mjl@195.22.80.141] has joined #scheme 04:18:41 -!- leo2007 [~leo@123.114.52.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:20:07 -!- superjudge [~mjl@195.22.80.141] has quit [Client Quit] 04:23:58 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.178.216.22] has joined #scheme 04:24:19 Riastradh: this "function" vs. "procedure" distinction is rather tricky. 04:24:56 They tell a function is what you say when they teach you logic. 04:25:08 When they teach you complex analysis they tell otherwise. 04:29:09 I think, that it should involve non-determinism for somehow 04:29:09 to distinguish between a function and a procedure. 04:29:56 Because "procedure" in your definition is a relation 04:29:56 between input and output, and thus deterministic output clearly 04:29:56 makes it "function". 04:30:44 -!- mippymoe89 [~mippymoe8@c-24-11-171-16.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:30:58 -!- gnomon [~gnomon@CPE0022158a8221-CM000f9f776f96.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:54:02 ckrailo [~ckrailo@pool-173-71-46-119.dllstx.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 04:57:12 gnomon [~gnomon@CPE0022158a8221-CM000f9f776f96.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 05:00:48 bokr [~bokr@109.110.32.172] has joined #scheme 05:05:30 -!- bokr [~bokr@109.110.32.172] has left #scheme 05:10:54 Ragnaroek [~chatzilla@p5B0C730D.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 05:17:16 -!- gnomon [~gnomon@CPE0022158a8221-CM000f9f776f96.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:17:56 gnomon [~gnomon@CPE0022158a8221-CM000f9f776f96.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 05:17:57 -!- masm [~masm@bl15-64-30.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 05:23:04 -!- alfa_y_omega_ [~alfa_y_om@90.166.231.220] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 05:23:43 alfa_y_omega_ [~alfa_y_om@90.166.231.220] has joined #scheme 05:30:15 -!- Ragnaroek [~chatzilla@p5B0C730D.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:32:54 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@jonr5.dsl.xmission.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:33:12 jonrafkind [~jon@jonr5.dsl.xmission.com] has joined #scheme 05:41:10 -!- cafesofie [~cafesofie@ool-18b97779.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:41:28 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@jonr5.dsl.xmission.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:48:01 -!- didi [~user@unaffiliated/didi/x-1022147] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 05:52:58 -!- X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 05:53:39 X-Scale [email@89.180.151.134] has joined #scheme 06:05:00 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196.215.49.168] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:05:36 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-49-168.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 06:16:38 mmc [~michal@82-148-210-75.fiber.unet.nl] has joined #scheme 06:17:06 -!- LN^off is now known as LN^^ 06:28:11 -!- mmc [~michal@82-148-210-75.fiber.unet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 06:34:19 jewel [~jewel@196-209-224-248.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 06:36:11 -!- yell0 [yello@unaffiliated/contempt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:36:36 yell0 [yello@unaffiliated/contempt] has joined #scheme 06:38:16 -!- mathk [~mathk@lns-bzn-49f-81-56-212-79.adsl.proxad.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 06:40:06 tell me why i am watching vidoes from the mid 80's on lisp and reading books from 85 and all of the code still works 06:40:10 try that with php heh 06:42:49 kniu [~kniu@DOHOHO.RES.CMU.EDU] has joined #scheme 06:50:49 hkBst [~quassel@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 06:51:55 pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1385159903.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has joined #scheme 07:06:07 -!- pdelgallego [~pdelgalle@1385159903.dhcp.dbnet.dk] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 07:07:07 wingo [~wingo@90.164.198.39] has joined #scheme 07:13:43 mathk_ [~mathk@lns-bzn-49f-81-56-212-79.adsl.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 07:16:03 mmc [~michal@salm-office-nat.tomtomgroup.com] has joined #scheme 07:19:11 -!- mmc [~michal@salm-office-nat.tomtomgroup.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:20:07 -!- Nshag [user@chl45-1-88-123-84-8.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 07:20:36 -!- arbscht [~arbscht@60-234-133-173.bitstream.orcon.net.nz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 07:23:06 arbscht [~arbscht@60-234-133-173.bitstream.orcon.net.nz] has joined #scheme 07:32:28 -!- twem2 [~tristan@puma-mxisp.mxtelecom.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:33:26 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 07:35:42 -!- blueadept [~blueadept@unaffiliated/blueadept] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:39:06 -!- X-Scale [email@89.180.151.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 07:40:28 X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has joined #scheme 07:41:16 -!- ckrailo [~ckrailo@pool-173-71-46-119.dllstx.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 07:41:21 twem2 [~tristan@puma-mxisp.mxtelecom.com] has joined #scheme 07:47:24 -!- jewel [~jewel@196-209-224-248.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 07:49:25 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 07:59:31 -!- Tasyne [~not4u@c-24-22-232-230.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 08:04:57 -!- fantazo [~fantazo@178-190-237-204.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:05:45 -!- monqy [~chap@pool-71-102-217-117.snloca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: hello] 08:15:37 -!- saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.4] 08:41:31 -!- xwl_ [~user@nat/nokia/x-oxemmfenpqeogdqn] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:44:08 -!- jrt4 [~jrtaylori@207-118-45-56.dyn.centurytel.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:52:20 I'm only three screens in, and this thing is getting Inception-like: C-a a a a to go to the beggining of the line. 08:54:06 local machine: escape ^\\\ ; remote machine: escape ^]] ; don't use telnet much 08:54:24 and try to avoid getting three screens deep, though it happens :) 08:56:08 aspect: Oh, wow; never thought of recursive telnet. 08:56:11 also don't be 0 screens deep too often since ^\ sends sigquit :) 08:57:16 recursive telnet is a pita; ssh is much nicer that way (although the \n is sometimes inconvenient) 08:57:48 but those escape settings for screen are absolutely neccessary for my sanity. I can't understand why anyone would leave it on ^A 09:04:00 aspect: Thanks for the tip; I might have developed "C-a a ..."-induced carpal tunnel after a while. 09:06:57 -!- yell0 [yello@unaffiliated/contempt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 09:07:11 yell0 [yello@unaffiliated/contempt] has joined #scheme 09:13:25 tupi [~david@189.60.162.71] has joined #scheme 09:24:01 Bahman [~bahman@2.144.215.97] has joined #scheme 09:24:33 Hi all! 09:34:19 saccade [~saccade@74-95-7-186-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #scheme 09:44:59 -!- saccade [~saccade@74-95-7-186-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 09:47:07 notsonerdysunny [~chatzilla@121.243.182.185] has joined #scheme 09:48:55 alaricsp [~alaric@212.183.140.23] has joined #scheme 09:53:39 -!- alaricsp [~alaric@212.183.140.23] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 10:04:14 -!- weinholt [weinholt@debian/emeritus/weinholt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 10:05:10 alaricsp [~alaric@212.183.140.23] has joined #scheme 10:05:37 ray_ [ray@xkcd-sucks.org] has joined #scheme 10:05:59 -!- ohwow [mao@meine.xn--nck9azb.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 10:05:59 -!- Adrinael [~adrinael@barrel.rolli.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 10:05:59 -!- milli [~milli@rasler.acmeps.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 10:05:59 -!- ray [ray@xkcd-sucks.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 10:06:06 ohwow [mao@meine.xn--nck9azb.jp] has joined #scheme 10:06:10 Adrinael [~adrinael@barrel.rolli.org] has joined #scheme 10:08:07 milli [~milli@rasler.acmeps.com] has joined #scheme 10:09:23 weinholt [weinholt@2a02:9a0:a101:0:20a:e4ff:fe2d:16e4] has joined #scheme 10:09:28 -!- weinholt [weinholt@2a02:9a0:a101:0:20a:e4ff:fe2d:16e4] has quit [Changing host] 10:09:28 weinholt [weinholt@debian/emeritus/weinholt] has joined #scheme 10:10:30 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-49-168.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:11:05 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-49-168.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 10:17:56 -!- X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:18:05 X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has joined #scheme 10:21:49 -!- alaricsp [~alaric@212.183.140.23] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:59:43 masm [~masm@bl15-64-30.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #scheme 11:11:30 tauntaun [~Crumpet@208.252.23.2] has joined #scheme 11:16:27 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 11:25:01 -!- X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:25:07 X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has joined #scheme 11:32:51 xwl [~user@123.108.223.27] has joined #scheme 11:32:57 -!- X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:33:08 X-Scale [email@89.180.147.198] has joined #scheme 11:38:03 klutometis: I have ^g as the escape key on my local screen and usually don't nest more than one remote screen (with default keybindings). 11:41:01 C-g is used too often in emacs. I use C-t 11:42:09 Nshag [user@chl45-1-88-123-84-8.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 11:44:00 Yeah, thought about that. 11:44:18 But I started using that before I started using emacs, and it's *so* hardwired into my hands. 11:49:11 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-146-140.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 11:53:59 C-z. it doesn't get used often 11:54:34 -!- tauntaun [~Crumpet@208.252.23.2] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 11:54:36 C-\ gets used even less often. 11:54:41 C-\ ftw 11:54:55 except when I use unconfigured screen. Then it sucks 11:55:19 I killed a 6 hour build that way a few days ago 11:55:30 Heh. :-( 11:58:00 fds: I need two hands to hit C-\ so it's not as convenient for me 11:58:25 we don't need to know why two hands is a problem 11:58:39 Heh 11:58:55 bremner_: the other hand is dirty snacking... 11:59:03 tmi 11:59:15 Well, on my keyboard C-\ and C-z are almost the same 12:03:59 stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has joined #scheme 12:04:30 -!- masm [~masm@bl15-64-30.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:08:15 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 12:14:44 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:15:02 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 12:16:39 -!- Bahman [~bahman@2.144.215.97] has left #scheme 12:17:49 -!- xwl [~user@123.108.223.27] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 12:25:36 i use C-t and M-t; and sometimes C-M-t with paredit 12:26:59 bremner_: As a heads-up, the racket package at git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/racket.git is FTBFS, at least the version on the master branch. Are you experiencing the same thing? I'll pastebin you the build output. 12:28:20 cky: I've not had problems in i386/amd64, but yes, I'd appreciate a log. 12:29:23 bremner_: http://pastebin.com/eeGJcMVF 12:31:52 cky: oh, yeah, I think I fixed that very recently; try a parallel build to test. Perversely, it only manifests for non-parallel builds. 12:32:11 -!- incubot [incubot@klutometis.wikitex.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:32:16 cky: what tag/revision are you building? 12:32:40 bremner_: 09516b7ef68faf079828e954efb83e1dcc58f840 12:32:57 incubot [incubot@klutometis.wikitex.org] has joined #scheme 12:34:04 huh. sounds like the patches are not applied. See debian/README.source 12:35:10 or just "git merge patch-queue/dfsg" might be simpler 12:35:55 you want c6eb1e6 12:36:08 *bremner_* & 12:41:04 aking [~aking@67.23.13.119] has joined #scheme 12:41:25 masm [~masm@bl15-64-30.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #scheme 12:44:00 Ah. :-) 12:49:46 Bahman [~bahman@2.144.215.97] has joined #scheme 13:11:06 -!- Bahman [~bahman@2.144.215.97] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:12:08 -!- notsonerdysunny [~chatzilla@121.243.182.185] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 13:37:25 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:40:47 ymasory_ [~ymasory@frank.ldc.upenn.edu] has joined #scheme 13:41:16 -!- ymasory [~ymasory@c-76-99-55-224.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:41:43 -!- ymasory_ is now known as ymasory 13:48:21 amoe [~amoe@cpc1-brig13-0-0-cust658.3-3.cable.virginmedia.com] has joined #scheme 13:54:00 -!- drdo``` [~user@93.108.205.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 13:55:53 sheikra [~wy@110.187.68.144] has joined #scheme 14:03:57 achim [~achim@dslb-088-072-004-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 14:12:41 -!- achim [~achim@dslb-088-072-004-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has left #scheme 14:13:24 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.178.216.22] has left #scheme 14:21:24 aisa [~aisa@c-68-35-164-105.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 14:26:07 ventonegro [~alex@187.37.128.9] has joined #scheme 14:28:23 it seems that hygiene is a world of pain 14:29:13 ventonegro: Non-hygiene is a world of even greater pain. 14:29:25 cky: for users, yes 14:29:32 If you want a happy medium between the two, use explicit renaming. 14:29:48 cky: the problem is not using them. 14:30:41 -!- hkBst [~quassel@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:31:34 I have a syntactic closures implementation of the standard scheme macros, and I now realise my 'cond' sucks 14:38:30 ventonegro: I've been reading your blog, there's a lot of really interesting posts there 14:39:24 and I agree with you on hygiene; and I'm still unconvinced that hygienic macros are "better" (fsvo better I'm sure it is) 14:39:57 rien: hey, thanks! 14:40:47 I'm writing an editor that will allow me to use CL macros to help writing code in any programming language. The editor will communicate with a lisp interpreter and expand the macros, turning them into whatever language you wrote the macro for. 14:41:28 ventonegro: I found your blog because I've been studying CPS conversion with LiSP and Appel's 'Compiling with Continuations' 14:42:07 rien: yeah, I love those books too 14:42:32 I chose to use CPS because it seems to be neglected nowadays, except for Chicken 14:42:48 cky is right though (as usual ;)), explicit renaming is a happy medium. I haven't done much of it in Scheme yet, but the discussions I've had convinced me that ER can be made to look exactly like what you would write on CL as defmacro 14:43:12 -!- samth_away is now known as samth 14:44:48 ventonegro: yep, much neglected. Gambit I believe has a nice way too of reifying continuations, but I've watched a lecture by the creator of Gambit and he said there are always compromises and nothing can beat CPS-transforming the whole code to get the fastest reified continuations possible. 14:45:21 Other Schemes copy the whole stack - they assume reified continuations will be used sparingly and therefore the huge cost of copying the environment won't hurt the program much. 14:45:32 rien, ER doesn't end up looking much like defmacro, unless you don't use hygiene 14:45:48 also, what's wrong with hygiene? 14:45:55 but CPS-transforming also basically does SSA for us so we get a lot of benefits from it, not just fast reified continuations 14:46:09 rien: you can do better than that 14:46:25 rien: Chez uses segmented stacks to avoid too much copying 14:46:41 rotty_web [8dc96dc0@gateway/web/freenode/ip.141.201.109.192] has joined #scheme 14:47:05 samth: sorry if I said it does end up like defmacro, I meant to say it can be made to look like defmacro. sjamaan told me there's some code lying around that converts a defmacro style macro to ER macro notation 14:47:27 creating a continuation can be O(1), and reinstating it can be less than O(n) on the stack size, because it replaces part of the stack 14:47:44 samth: what's wrong with hygiene is that it makes macros harder to write. Nemerle has macros too but it's a pain. If macros are hard to write they end up not being used. 14:47:58 rien: yes, the biggest selling point is an IL easy to manipulate 14:48:37 syntax-rules is hard? /me confused :) 14:49:36 leppie: Yes, I find them harder to write than Common Lisp macros. 14:49:50 rien, macros are hard to write in exactly the sense that metaprogramming is hard 14:49:59 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-181-248.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 14:50:10 hygiene (and advanced macro technology in general) makes metaprogramming easier 14:50:13 If meta programming is equal to programming, then meta programming is not harder than programming. 14:50:28 That's what cl:defmacro does: make meta programming strictly the same as programming. 14:50:35 leppie: of course they are harder. in CL I use CL to write macros. in Scheme syntax-rules has its own rules, it's another language. 14:50:42 -!- az [~az@p5796C023.dip.t-dialin.net] has left #scheme 14:50:56 samth: it makes it different, therefore more complex: now you have two way of programming to learn. 14:50:57 klutometis: Are/were you using screen? 14:50:58 pjb, defmacro most certainly don't do that 14:51:09 samth: sure. 14:51:23 *leppie* notes that he is a syntax-case junkie 14:51:25 pjb, syntax-rules is a domain specific language that makes some macros simpler to write (and other macros harder) 14:51:31 klutometis: If so, it's easy to re-map the prefix character. I use C-\. 14:51:35 samth: agreed. 14:51:42 ventonegro: I didn't know about Chez's way of doing it. I'll have to look into it. It's a proprietary compiler so I woner how deep I can go :) 14:51:57 it also has very little to do with hygiene, other than that hygiene was first specified for macros written in that language 14:52:21 rien: there is a paper about it 14:52:38 klutometis: Just add "escape ^\\" to your .screenrc. 14:53:06 rien: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/papers/stack.ps 14:53:33 samth: I agree too, some macros are much easier to write correctly the first time with syntax-rules. others are impossible. 14:54:12 rien, if your complaint is with syntax-rules, then i probably share it, but it has *zero* to do with hygiene 14:54:20 ventonegro: thanks! I'll bookmark it and read later after my wife is done being upset that I'm talking here not giving her any attention :P 14:54:45 lol rien, that seems pretty common, my wife does the same 14:54:48 rien: I know what you mean... 14:54:56 samth: I grant you that I may be confusing things. 14:55:26 it's a common confusion to think that hygiene is all about syntax-rules 14:55:29 leppie: she's upset because she asked me to help her cut some paper with scissors and I did it quickly just to be back here :P 14:55:52 just remember, it is always YOUR fault 14:56:02 samth: can you point to some reading material that dispells that confusion? 14:56:58 leppie: yep, even when I get upset with something that she did, I end up apologizing somehow. she manipulates me :) 14:57:45 soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has joined #scheme 14:57:53 rien, https://www.cs.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/techreports/TRNNN.cgi?trnum=TR356 14:58:08 erjiang [~erjiang@7.80.244.66.jest.smithvilledigital.net] has joined #scheme 14:58:22 -!- erjiang [~erjiang@7.80.244.66.jest.smithvilledigital.net] has quit [Client Quit] 14:59:06 samth: I see ER macros as a more first-class macro system in that I can use scheme to generate the code and there are no rules, and I can choose when to be hygienic and when not too (I can only say from the informal examples I've seen on IRC - I could be wrong.). 14:59:22 I don't even know if the ER macro code I've seen is just concept or if it actually can run anywhere 14:59:26 thanks for the link, samth! 14:59:40 I don't know syntax-case much, but if it solves all the binding problems being listed in scheme-reports, may be the way to go 15:00:22 rien, all of those properties are true of all procedural macro systems 15:01:43 so syntax-rules is not a procedural macro system? 15:02:46 ventonegro: if I understand correctly, with r5rs syntax-rules there's no way to be unhygienic 15:03:21 rien, no, it isn't (in the usual meaning of those terms) 15:03:45 rien: do you read the scheme-reports ML? 15:08:35 arcfide [1000@c-69-136-5-227.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 15:14:02 -!- X-Scale [email@89.180.147.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:14:09 oh, ML as in mailing list? 15:14:13 no, I don't 15:14:44 samth: that makes sense then. :) 15:15:18 -!- amoe [~amoe@cpc1-brig13-0-0-cust658.3-3.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Quit: leaving] 15:18:01 rien: actually, never mind, the problem is not syntax-rules, it's how it is implemented 15:22:07 Bahman [~bahman@2.146.26.16] has joined #scheme 15:24:10 ventonegro: you read that on samth's linked paper? 15:24:15 (brb) 15:25:05 rien: from examples in the ML 15:27:49 didi [~user@unaffiliated/didi/x-1022147] has joined #scheme 15:29:55 yes, the scheme-reports list spends a lot of time discussing poorly-implemented macro systems 15:30:51 pdlogan [~patrick@174-25-37-137.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #scheme 15:33:17 samth: *sigh* 15:34:15 alaricsp [~alaric@geniedb.hotdesktop.biz] has joined #scheme 15:35:43 arcfide, sadly the personnel changes made this unavoidable 15:37:06 samth: Heh, :-). 15:37:40 it turns out that matthew and kent know a lot about macros ... 15:37:57 -!- arcfide [1000@c-69-136-5-227.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has left #scheme 15:38:37 ASau, no, a `procedure' as I defined it is not, in fact, a relation between input and output. For example, the procedure (define (foo) (let loop () (pp (eval (read) (repl-env))) (loop))) does not have output in the sense you probably meant. The procedure (define (foo k) (k 0)) may replace its continuation, if k is an escape procedure. Some functions are noncomputable, and hence no procedure expresses them; thus, there are `relations between in 15:39:08 ASau, I don't know what complex analysis has to do with it... What makes complex functions any different from any other, other than that they involve complex inputs and outputs? 15:40:18 ckrailo [~ckrailo@208.86.167.249] has joined #scheme 15:40:59 -!- rasterbar [~rasterbar@unaffiliated/rasterbar] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 15:41:11 -!- slom [~sloma@port-87-234-239-162.static.qsc.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:42:47 Hey guys, a bit o astroturfing... If you're a HN reader and are a smug Scheme weenie, I'd appreciate an up-vote. (It's not my submission, so I'm not whoring for karma.) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2517597 15:44:01 edw: done 15:44:44 Thank you. I appreciate your help in my war against syntax and one-job tools. 15:45:01 You really don't want to use STRING-APPEND like that unless you like quadratic running times... 15:45:28 edw, the comments on the original bit were quite remarkable 15:45:45 Should I just cons up a list and APPLY them to STRING-APPEND at the end? 15:46:11 how can scheme be good when ruby is so dsl-friendly that i have to do metaprogramming to implement lists 15:46:16 string output port :) 15:46:23 Use a string output port. 15:47:04 -!- infid [~infid@rrcs-173-198-12-38.west.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:47:05 Ah. OK. I have some monkey work to do, but I'll revise it presently. 15:47:39 I'll need two string output ports, though. 15:48:32 edw: Is that a problem? 15:48:43 No. 15:48:52 does anyone use a scheme that detects circular lists given to `map' or `for-each'? 15:49:02 infid [~infid@99-101-15-134.lightspeed.sndgca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 15:49:17 You could even hook up directly the a textual network output port then 15:49:24 i happen to do so but have never needed that. 15:49:32 s/the/then/ 15:49:35 wingo: SRFI 1's map and for-each allow circular lists, as long as at least one incoming list is proper. 15:49:36 -a 15:49:54 cky: i have seen that, yes 15:50:03 wingo: ikarus does, I was too lazy to implement it though :) 15:50:07 but their implementations do not detect circularity 15:50:18 the reference impls i mean 15:50:20 wingo: well it checks for it 15:50:30 leppie: Cool idea! (WRITE-CSS RULE-LIST [PORT]) 15:50:32 dont think it allows it 15:50:44 edw :) 15:51:14 Thanks for the feedback guys. 15:52:05 wingo, I was about to ask `why would you want to?', but you beat me to it. My next question, then, is `why does Guile do that?', as you seem to imply it does. 15:52:07 if the input is 'static' why not make it a macro, edw? that would mean you have a string to go at runtime 15:52:37 Riastradh: i have no idea :) 15:52:38 i doubt css change per request :) 15:52:51 presumably you know it when you're using a circular list... 15:54:16 leppie: There could be a macro version, but the second example shows how you can use this with quasiquotation and splicing to achieve re-use. 15:54:31 hmmm wingo, ikarus fails with cyclic lists 15:54:39 failed to mmap: Cannot allocate memory 15:54:51 leppie: heh, fun 15:54:56 you mean, it really dies? 15:55:07 That's a pretty graceless error... 15:55:11 gone 15:55:14 yow 15:55:15 Failure, rather. 15:55:39 but then again, I am running an old 32-bit compiled version on 64-bit OS now 15:55:45 not sure if that matters 15:58:13 weirdly, ironscheme terminates that example as 'not a pair' (have no idea why ;p) 16:00:01 rasterbar [~rasterbar@unaffiliated/rasterbar] has joined #scheme 16:00:11 oh, it runs out, thats why 16:01:48 tauntaun [~Crumpet@ool-4356673a.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #scheme 16:02:10 *wingo* biab 16:05:09 wingo, racket detects circularity and errors 16:05:34 -!- tauntaun [~Crumpet@ool-4356673a.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit] 16:10:43 HG` [~HG@p5DC05078.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 16:14:49 -!- rotty_web [8dc96dc0@gateway/web/freenode/ip.141.201.109.192] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 16:21:18 -!- sheikra [~wy@110.187.68.144] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 16:24:22 jonrafkind [~jon@jonr5.dsl.xmission.com] has joined #scheme 16:28:39 homie [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-157-1.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 16:49:59 jewel [~jewel@196-209-224-248.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 16:50:53 -!- shardz [~samuel@ilo.staticfree.info] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:53:35 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 16:56:23 Tasyne [~not4u@c-24-22-232-230.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 17:00:07 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-181-248.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 17:00:26 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-181-248.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 17:02:35 -!- ventonegro [~alex@187.37.128.9] has quit [Quit: ventonegro] 17:03:02 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-49-168.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [] 17:03:20 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 17:04:06 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 17:04:17 Ragnaroek [~chatzilla@p5B0C4F50.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 17:09:53 -!- Bahman [~bahman@2.146.26.16] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:14:07 -!- pygospa is now known as pygPartyOrga 17:16:57 blueadept [~blueadept@unaffiliated/blueadept] has joined #scheme 17:18:03 -!- homie [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-157-1.netcologne.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:23:52 superjudge [~superjudg@c83-250-110-188.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 17:29:22 monqy [~chap@pool-71-102-217-117.snloca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 17:30:32 saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has joined #scheme 17:31:30 arcfide [1000@c-69-136-5-227.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 17:36:21 homie [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-157-1.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 17:36:31 -!- alaricsp [~alaric@geniedb.hotdesktop.biz] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 17:39:46 wbooze [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-157-1.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 17:43:11 X-Scale [email@2001:470:1f08:b3d::2] has joined #scheme 17:48:07 I've forgotten: Does Scheme guarantee left to right eval of procedure arguments? 17:49:15 edw: No. 17:49:17 No 17:49:18 no. 17:49:22 Heh 17:49:26 OK... 17:50:03 -!- superjudge [~superjudg@c83-250-110-188.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Quit: superjudge] 17:52:10 That sort of sucks for my purposes. Oh well. 17:53:49 For what purposes would you rely on such implicit ordering guarantees? 17:53:55 samth: cool, tx; even for (map f circular circular finite circular), etc? 17:54:30 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:54:49 I don't want to worry about introducing a bug by transforming (f (x) (big-horrible-hairy-expression)) into (let ((a (big-horrible-hairy-expression))) (f (x) a)). 17:54:52 WRITE-STRING returns the number of bytes (chars? whatevers?) written; I want to sum the value of a number of writes. 17:55:14 I'll probably just use a bunch of nested LETs... 17:55:38 In cases like (and x y) left to right eval can be handy. 17:55:43 You can always write a macro (L->R ...) that expands to (LET* (( ) ...) ( ...)). 17:56:07 That's because AND is a special operator already with different evaluation rules from those of procedure calls, mario-goulart. 17:56:09 I'm writing a macro to write a number of strings. Maybe I'll generalize that... 17:57:43 Riastradh: But mario-goulart has an interesting point. 17:58:16 didi: AND is a macro. 17:58:19 Or could be. 17:58:24 pygospa [~TheRealPy@kiel-4d06708f.pool.mediaWays.net] has joined #scheme 17:58:30 Using IF... 17:58:44 (Or vice versa...) 17:58:51 Yes. 18:00:38 Guest16457 [~michael@d54C17614.access.telenet.be] has joined #scheme 18:00:58 What's the interesting point mario-goulart was making? 18:01:02 -!- pygPartyOrga [~TheRealPy@kiel-4d0663c8.pool.mediaWays.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 18:01:27 Forcing order evaluation. 18:01:31 -!- Guest16457 [~michael@d54C17614.access.telenet.be] has left #scheme 18:01:31 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 18:01:36 kilimanja [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 18:02:13 mimi15 [~michael@d54C17614.access.telenet.be] has joined #scheme 18:02:31 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 18:03:15 Here's my macro... 18:03:15 https://gist.github.com/957539 18:03:36 jcowan [~John@cpe-74-68-112-189.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 18:04:37 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-74-68-112-189.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit] 18:04:52 Hello, does anybody know where i can find the extended version of the paper "an incremental approach to compiler construction" by a. ghuloum? 18:05:32 shardz [~samuel@ilo.staticfree.info] has joined #scheme 18:06:05 i already searched in all the common scheme resource websites 18:10:38 mmc [~michal@82-148-210-75.fiber.unet.nl] has joined #scheme 18:12:14 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 18:12:22 rudybot, eval (map + (shared ([x (cons 1 x)]) x) (list 1 2 3)) 18:12:22 samth: error: map: expects type as 2nd argument, given: #0=(1 . #0#); other arguments were: # (1 2 3) 18:12:27 wingo, as above 18:13:01 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-49-168.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 18:13:05 edw, if you use racket, it does make that guarantee 18:15:26 edw, why a macro for that? (Note that you are multiply evaluating the port expression.) (define (write-strings strings port) (for-each (lambda (s) (write-string s port)) strings) (reduce + 0 (map string-length strings] 18:18:24 mimi15: extended version? 18:19:56 yes, the short version is 11 pages long but the author said at the end of the paper that a extended version can be found at his website at indiana univ 18:20:18 but he no longer has a page at that website 18:20:36 web.archive.org? 18:22:57 it worked! 18:23:11 thanks, I didn't know about that website 18:23:51 I was just about to send an email to the author. 18:25:14 -!- Ragnaroek [~chatzilla@p5B0C4F50.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:25:34 Heh. The IA is nice at times :) 18:26:05 REPLeffect [~REPLeffec@69.54.115.254] has joined #scheme 18:29:06 if you find aziz, do come back and tell us he is well :) 18:29:17 scheme misses aziz! 18:31:43 Blkt [~user@dynamic-adsl-78-13-249-96.clienti.tiscali.it] has joined #scheme 18:32:46 apparently he is working as an assistant professor in the american university of kuwait 18:32:52 drdo [~user@91.205.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #scheme 18:33:53 i see that he didn't fully finish the tutorial but it looks valuable anyway 18:34:27 good evening everyone 18:34:48 mimi15: yes i love that paper. it's a fun one! 18:37:02 looks like it is indeed 18:37:28 i just read structure and interpretation of computer programs chapter 5 18:37:56 this looks like a good follow-up 18:42:26 HG`` [~HG@p5DC04E09.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 18:42:34 -!- mimi15 [~michael@d54C17614.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:42:36 superjudge [~superjudg@c83-250-110-188.bredband.comhem.se] has joined #scheme 18:44:43 -!- realitygrill [~realitygr@adsl-76-226-114-213.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:44:57 -!- HG` [~HG@p5DC05078.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 18:45:08 -!- kilimanja [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:52:17 realitygrill [~realitygr@76.226.231.137] has joined #scheme 19:01:58 ymasory_ [~ymasory@mkb027.wlan.isc-seo.upenn.edu] has joined #scheme 19:04:56 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 19:05:54 -!- stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has left #scheme 19:07:24 carleastlund [~cce@209-6-40-238.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 19:08:38 -!- alfa_y_omega_ [~alfa_y_om@90.166.231.220] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:13:34 realitygrill_ [~realitygr@76.226.206.51] has joined #scheme 19:16:24 -!- realitygrill [~realitygr@76.226.231.137] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:16:25 -!- realitygrill_ is now known as realitygrill 19:25:44 Riastradh: Because I had forgotten that FOR-EACH existed. I've been in Clojureland too long. 19:26:23 -!- didi [~user@unaffiliated/didi/x-1022147] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 19:27:02 *edw* shakes head in incomprehension. 19:31:30 edw: Long time no see, how are things going? 19:32:44 stis [~stis@host-90-235-236-153.mobileonline.telia.com] has joined #scheme 19:39:39 -!- saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.4] 19:53:02 -!- ymasory_ [~ymasory@mkb027.wlan.isc-seo.upenn.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 19:56:33 bweaver [~user@host-68-169-175-225.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 20:04:06 -!- wbooze [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-157-1.netcologne.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:04:06 -!- homie [~levgue@xdsl-78-35-157-1.netcologne.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:04:47 Bahman [~bahman@2.146.26.16] has joined #scheme 20:05:02 arcfide: Hey. Doing good. New gig. Everything else is pretty much the same. 20:06:09 edw: New gig? 20:08:18 Working at an ad agency. Piping data from AdWords, Fb, Google Analytics, anything really into databases and using Cascalog to mine stuff. Also doing some Node.js stuff, Redis, writing JS tools to do site testing. All sorts of fun stuff. 20:11:08 Cool. 20:11:18 I noticed the other day that www.xmog.com was significantly different. :-) 20:12:06 I left about two years ago. My partners didn't believe in my "don't do stupid things for money" motto. 20:12:28 (/ 5 2) years ago, actually. 20:17:23 Is it precisely 5/2 years ago? 20:17:36 -!- lbc_ [~quassel@1908ds1-aboes.0.fullrate.dk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:17:36 -!- lbc__ [~quassel@1908ds1-aboes.0.fullrate.dk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:17:41 If not, why don't you just use imprecise number? ;) 20:18:03 Plus or minus four days. 20:18:20 lbc_ [~quassel@1908ds1-aboes.0.fullrate.dk] has joined #scheme 20:18:33 How long is a year? 20:18:47 Ahh, what kind of year? 20:19:08 Well, you said some number of years ago, so I thought I'd ask how long those years are. 20:19:39 I suppose you specified an end date (now), so there's no ambiguity about the actual duration of the interval. 20:20:07 Earth tropical years. 20:20:19 *ASau* coughs. 20:20:46 Earth tropical years are variable-duration; that's why we have leap seconds. 20:21:30 And the earth's rotation is slowing... 20:21:31 *ASau* thinks that Riastradh is involved into some GPS or similar project where precise time is needed. 20:21:38 Slowing?? 20:21:46 Not at all! 20:21:49 Yup. Blame the moon. 20:22:11 (Or Canada...) 20:22:28 If you look at the graph, you'll see that it may slow down in general, but it doesn't on smaller scale. 20:22:30 Yes...future days will take 28 actual days :o 20:22:48 If you only happen to see them. 20:22:53 But it will take some hundred million years. 20:23:02 what should (length+ 'foo) produce, from srfi-1 ? 20:23:09 evaluate to, i mean. 20:23:13 0 20:24:03 saiko-chriskun [~chris-kun@fsf/member/saiko-chriskun] has joined #scheme 20:24:30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Historical_evidence 20:24:31 Riastradh: on procedures. 20:24:42 Riastradh: _if_ the source is deterministic, it is still a function. 20:24:44 Riastradh: #f you mean? 20:25:12 No, wingo, I mean 0. FOO is a dotted list of length zero. 20:25:47 Riastradh: and if it never terminates, it just never terminates. 20:25:53 (partial function) 20:27:14 Riastradh: agreed; but http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-1/srfi-1.html#length+ has no language regarding improper lists afaics 20:29:57 Hmm, you're right, wingo. Looks like that's an error, in fact, since LENGTH+ accepts only a proper or circular list. I thought it took an arbitrary list. 20:30:58 well, that's not clear to me either; the document refers to the domain of `length', and then says that `length+' does something for circular lists, but doesn't say anything about improper lists and length+ 20:31:26 It says LENGTH+ takes a clist, which earlier the document specifies to be a proper or circular list. 20:31:46 ah i see 20:33:38 bgs100 [~ian@unaffiliated/bgs100] has joined #scheme 20:35:04 -!- ymasory [~ymasory@frank.ldc.upenn.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 20:39:04 Ragnaroek [~chatzilla@p5B0C4F50.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 20:39:50 -!- edw [~user@70-89-62-209-philadelphia-panjde.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:40:11 -!- Ragnaroek [~chatzilla@p5B0C4F50.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:41:54 jcowan [c6b912cf@gateway/web/freenode/ip.198.185.18.207] has joined #scheme 20:42:12 arcfide: ping 20:43:43 jcowan: MITM ICMP echo reply! 20:44:36 That's weird. I wasn't multicasting. But I'm a permissive sort, so I won't drop that packet. 20:48:34 tauntaun [~Crumpet@64.134.66.135] has joined #scheme 20:48:35 :) 20:48:37 More and more discrepancies are appearing within implementations. For example, is a macro call in the body of DEFINE-SYNTAX recognized or not? 20:48:46 s/within/between 20:49:23 If so, then there can be a phasing problem even if you only have SYNTAX-RULES. 20:49:51 jcowan: Yep? 20:49:53 jim rees' note on that seemed definitive as far as wg1 goes, no? 20:50:28 jcowan: I believe that the R5RS and the draft both preclude this example as, I think, you mentioned. 20:50:50 Or maybe it was Jim. 20:51:13 It's not clear that they preclude it, because there is no explicit statement of exactly where macro calls are detected. 20:53:18 The draft states that (define-syntax ) is the only valid form. and must be an instance of `syntax-rules'. 20:53:46 Ah, there you are. You're *JUST WRONG* about SRFI-9 field names. 20:53:58 Oh? 20:53:59 *jcowan* shouts for emphasis. 20:54:00 How so? 20:54:11 They're used in the definition of the constructor. They have to be distinct. 20:54:33 What about the ones the constructor doesn't take? 20:55:02 Okay, if you're a bozo, you can make those all the same. But I'd rather not be a bozo. 20:55:23 I think we're all bozos on this bus. 20:55:33 jcowan: They would have to be distinct if they were used in the constructor, but to be honest, I really hope that we can reconsider the entire format of define-record-type. I'm okay with the subset of functionality that we have prescribed, but the overall form drives me nuts. 20:55:38 Riastradh: Well said. 20:56:10 jcowan: Using this format is just going to make it that much harder to make a proper record system that has more functionality in the WG2. 20:56:35 By which you mean single inheritance, or multiple constructors, or what? 20:56:50 What's a proper record system? 20:57:00 One that implements proper records, obviously. 20:57:10 Ah. What's a proper record, then? 20:57:20 Or, perhaps more importantly, what's an improper record? 20:57:23 Those provided by a proper record system. Really now. 20:57:27 (A dotted record? Circular record?) 20:57:37 jcowan: Single inheritance, multiple inheritance, generative or non-generatives, mixing procedural and syntactic forms, protocols, or any other feature that isn't already enabled by the existing form. 20:57:42 Clearly one whose penultimate member is a dot. 20:58:08 Ah! A circular record is the format on which the Firesign Theatre published _I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus_. Makes a little more sense now. 20:58:22 i think that format is obsolete. 20:58:23 Basically, any additional functionality that we want to specify is going to be difficult to do in a clean, compatible way. 20:58:37 And that's just going to make this whole thing look ugly. 21:01:56 Be that as it may, it's what we voted on. We could vote to reconsider, yes. 21:01:59 What do you mean by protocols? 21:02:34 jcowan: The R6RS feature. 21:02:42 Ah yes, forgot about that. 21:02:55 jcowan: Well, I wonder if we conflated record features with record syntax. Is it possible to revote on the syntax and keep the features? 21:03:40 How about importing SML's concept of variant types and records, and throwing away the whole R6RS record business? 21:04:07 Riastradh: How many Scheme implementations currently do it that way? 21:04:23 None. But lots of SML implementations do. 21:04:34 -!- Nisstyre [~nisstyre@infocalypse-net.info] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 21:05:00 Riastradh: Did you propose something? I can't remember. 21:05:21 Well, about two minutes ago. 21:05:48 Riastradh: That's not much of a proposal. :-) 21:06:32 I'd guess http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/datatype might be available for other Schemes, considering it's based on a system described in a book 21:06:33 (I'm joking. It wouldn't really work. Nevertheless, I like the way SML does records. It can be coopted handily for named parameters too (in SML).) 21:06:36 arcfide: I notice your proposal only has a natural constructor, not a filtering constructor like SRFI-9. So you'd need a new proposal if you want SRFI-9 compatibility. 21:07:08 Can you let DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE be SRFI 9's thing and make sure to use a different name for different syntax, at least? 21:07:52 I'm for that in WG2, although the extension to SRFI-9 for inheritance (single or multiple) is fairly obvious. 21:07:58 jcowan: I'd actually like to remove the filtering constructor, as I think it's not general enough and you would generally end up with a separate constructor for it anyways. 21:09:10 How, not general enough? 21:09:37 -!- mathk_ [~mathk@lns-bzn-49f-81-56-212-79.adsl.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: mathk_] 21:09:37 -!- tauntaun [~Crumpet@64.134.66.135] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 21:09:57 mathk_ [~mathk@lns-bzn-49f-81-56-212-79.adsl.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 21:10:11 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-181-248.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:10:21 Nisstyre [~nisstyre@infocalypse-net.info] has joined #scheme 21:10:22 jcowan: The normal reason that I want to limit the number of fields is because I want to put defaults into the other fields, it's rather useless to me to have a filtering constructor where the other fields are not specified, then I have to make those fields mutable. I can't have immutable fields that are populated at construction time with values of my choosing. 21:11:49 I suppose it's actually academic, given that we have modules. You can hide the natural constructor inside the module and expose your own instead. 21:12:25 etboggs [~etboggs@2001:18e8:2:244:213:72ff:fe81:7181] has joined #scheme 21:12:41 jcowan: Re your snort from about a week ago (about more people joining r7rs) -- note that my main complaint is in repeating discussions that were done in the context of r6rs, and certain conclusions were reached. 21:12:47 In addition, they were done by people who really know what they're doing. 21:12:53 So from my POV, spending more cycles re-hashing things like "explicit renaming or syntax-case" is an exercise in wasting time -- hence there is no reason for me to join just for that. 21:13:02 (Even if people would not mind someone who only cares about a few points, which seems unlikely.) 21:13:11 If you want R6RS, you certainly know where it is. 21:13:48 That's childishly avoiding the issue. 21:14:27 No, if I said "where I think it should be", that would be childish. R7RS is not meant to supersede R6RS, which is one reason I don't like the name "R7RS". 21:14:31 jcowan, tragically, many members of the current working groups don't seem to 21:15:14 eli: If all decisions were made exactly like r6, we'd end up with r6. r6 was the problem that caused r7 to be neccessary so soon 21:15:23 jcowan: I'm not talking about superseding, I'm talking about re-hashing well-hashed discussions. 21:15:23 Anyway, what I said was meant to be counterfactual: if more people *had joined* WG2 at the right time, it probably would have adopted syntax-case. They didn't, and it didn't. 21:15:27 sjamaan: ^ 21:15:34 So far there has been no rehashing. 21:15:43 No hashing?? 21:15:54 Very little, none of it about macro systems. 21:16:03 Andre has been slaving trying to educate people in things that were very much hashed. 21:16:11 That is WG1. 21:16:21 & andre's efforts are much appreciated! 21:16:29 yes they are! 21:16:31 Yes indeed, not least by the WG1 editors. 21:16:50 jcowan: He has also explained in details why going with ER as suggested is bad. 21:17:13 The main point seemed to be "it's incompatible with syntax-case" 21:17:22 But isn't syntax-case also incompatible with ER? 21:17:23 sjamaan: There are many more points than that. 21:17:25 Felix seems to think so 21:17:41 sjamaan: No, that's utterly wrong. Re-read his reply. 21:17:53 Do you have a URI to this reply, eli? 21:18:05 sjamaan: my impression is that the problem lies in which general case to optimise for. 21:18:13 jcowan: But the thing is, WG1+2 *is* supposed to supersede R6RS. 21:18:20 Riastradh: It was sometimes in the last week, IIRC. 21:18:42 There was a flurry of messages 21:18:46 And it's all in one thread 21:18:56 R6RS was supposed to supersede R5RS, but it obviously has not and won't. I'm very leery of any such goals for Scheme 2011 (might as well use my preferred name) 21:19:12 Riastradh: He basically said that to make ER do the right thing you need to have all the right bits for a `syntax-case' system only without the pattern matching part -- but the fact that `syntax-rules' is needed makes avoiding `syntax-case' itself silly. 21:19:16 Scheme'11 21:19:28 There are two problems, ASau. One is that macros are hard, there are lots of hairy cases to handle, and it's very frustrating for the people who have found a way to handle them to see flailing by people who obviously don't understand macros but desperately want to standardize them. 21:19:28 With the official tagline "Ours goes up to eleven" 21:20:16 The other problem is that the people who have found a way to handle the hairy cases did it in a very hairy way that people who don't like hairy things, well, don't like, because it seems very much unnecessarily hard to understand. 21:20:16 These two groups of people don't communicate very well. 21:20:25 Of course, there are hairy corner cases even in the hairy version. 21:20:42 Geef [~Geef@249.Red-83-33-83.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 21:20:58 Riastradh: http://www.mail-archive.com/scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org/msg00525.html 21:20:58 http://tinyurl.com/3gdzd6l 21:21:00 Plus the divide between fully separated phases, explicit phases, and implicit phases. 21:21:13 http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2011-April/000553.html 21:21:13 http://tinyurl.com/3uhvt84 21:21:20 Oh, come on. The whole business of implicit phasing is just wrong; there's no real problem there. 21:21:52 And re "don't communicate very well" -- that's an understatement, given that some of the r7rs people express explicit anti-r6rs just for the sake of being anti-r6rs. 21:22:14 That's the very definition of ad hominem attack, eli. 21:22:24 Huh? 21:22:31 That was made very explicitly. 21:22:38 eli, oh, I meant that the groups are very bad at cross-communication, i.e. inter-group communication. I didn't mean that either group is bad at intra-group communication. 21:22:41 How do you know what their motives are? 21:23:02 jcowan: " Because I'm going to feed the R6RS editors to the jaguar shark :P" 21:23:06 jcowan: I thought that people like Brian came down pretty strongly on an anti-R6RS position, explicitely, didn't they? 21:23:29 Yes, but that was because he didn't like its features, including uber-definitionism and largeism. 21:23:31 jcowan: Yes, BH is another example, "they're not Scheme. Pfui." 21:23:46 In short there's nothing personal. 21:23:55 I thought tl;bh were irrelevant by now? 21:23:56 eli: This post starts from the assumption that you're going to have "syntax objects" 21:24:09 Being anti-R6 for the sake of it would mean you'd be opposed to R6 no matter what features it had. 21:24:27 Riastradh: Brian still gets a vote. 21:24:31 I think Chicken and Chibi show you don't necessarily need those (though I'm not 100% sure about Chibi) 21:24:49 sjamaan, you don't need `syntax objects' per se but you do need DATUM->SYNTAX. 21:25:08 Yes, anyway, back to Andre's post. It says the troubles with vanilla ER is that it's incompatible with modules (false by construction) and it's incompatible with syntax-case (probably true, but of doubtful relevance). 21:25:09 -!- superjudge [~superjudg@c83-250-110-188.bredband.comhem.se] has quit [Quit: superjudge] 21:25:13 Riastradh: Isn't that just the rename procedure? 21:25:14 sjamaan: Wasn't Chicken one of the Schemes that had a REPL semantics that broke hygiene? 21:25:20 No, sjamaan. 21:25:24 sjamaan: No matter what system you use, you need *identifiers*. 21:25:48 arcfide: There may be one or two bugs, but I don't think anything's fundamentally broken 21:25:49 Right, you may not need *general* syntax objects, but you do need names that are not just symbols. 21:25:57 jcowan, given that andre has implemented a module system and compatible ER system, he would seem to know what he's talking about here 21:26:29 He says ER as originally specified is incompatible with modules. Now that may be true for *some* definition of modules, but not all. 21:26:30 Riastradh: True. Chicken uses gensyms for that 21:27:06 Here is a simple exercise, sjamaan. 21:27:15 right, if we define modules to mean functions, then it's perfectly compatible 21:27:34 Chicken has modules and ER-as-specified. 21:27:50 Using ER, write a macro WHILE such that (WHILE ) does the usual while loop, and binds the variable EXIT in to an escape procedure for the continuation of the WHILE expression. 21:27:54 Chibi has modules and SC-as-specified. 21:28:09 I'm a bit late to the party, but curious, so... what macro systems are WG1 and WG2 going to use? 21:28:23 Geef: Oh please, please, don't! :-) 21:28:41 Geef: WG1 uses syntax-rules. 21:28:44 Riastradh: That would just be inserting a non-renamed EXIT symbol, because it's unhygienic 21:28:50 I don't know what Andre's claim about ER and modules is. 21:28:50 WG2 is...well....*sobs*. 21:29:16 Actually, let me simplify the exercise a little. 21:29:27 arcfide: don't what? :P 21:29:28 Using ER, write a macro (LOOP ) that executes repeatedly, with EXIT bound to an escape procedure. 21:29:37 His claim is that ER-as-specified is incompatible with modules. 21:29:41 Same thing, Riastradh 21:29:44 Now, as a second exercise, write a macro (WHILE ) in terms of WHILE. 21:29:50 ...in terms of LOOP. 21:30:12 Riastradh: You use SC, right? 21:30:22 ((WHILE ), whatever.) 21:30:25 Riastradh: syntactic closures, that is. 21:30:26 ...gah. 21:30:35 I screwed up the exercise. 21:30:49 (LOOP ) is supposed to have EXIT bound; (WHILE ) is not. 21:31:00 Ah, I see 21:31:38 I'd like to write: (define-syntax while (syntax-rules () ((WHILE condition body0 body1+ ...) (LOOP (IF (NOT condition) (EXIT)) body0 body1+ ...], but that doesn't work if you implement LOOP the way you said you would. 21:31:49 Riastradh: Are you claiming there's a bug in Abdulaziz's argument that some things expressible with implicit phasing cannot be expressed with explicit phasing? I'm willing to believe that the converse is true, but an example would be good. 21:32:03 I'm claiming that implicit phasing is stupid, jcowan. 21:32:20 Oh, okay. Why? 21:32:58 There is no real useful content to it. 21:33:24 There *is* real useful content to explicit phasing. I can write a Pre-Scheme (lazy Scheme, typed Scheme, or what have you) macro in Scheme with explicit phasing. 21:33:48 Fare [~Fare@ita4fw1.itasoftware.com] has joined #scheme 21:34:36 Riastradh: Is writing these macros possible with SC? 21:34:38 Riastradh: Huh? 21:34:38 *jcowan* doesn't get it. 21:35:02 Implicit phasing means "the compiler figures out the phasing". This couldn't be done with fully separate phases, but R6RS doesn't have that. 21:35:16 sjamaan, `SC-as-written' is no different from `ER-as-written' for the purposes of this exercise. 21:35:45 Yes, jcowan, and there is no real merit to having the compiler figure out the phases for you, because if you don't know what the phases are to begin with, you're uselessly confused and shouldn't be touching macros. 21:36:28 sjamaan, to solve this problem, you need DATUM->SYNTAX. 21:36:34 But you agree that what you are arguing for can't be done in R6RS explicit phasing? 21:36:44 Riaxpander has DATUM->SYNTAX, more or less. 21:36:50 jcowan: IIRC, he never had a practical example that is not possible with explicit phases. Meanwhile, if you want implicit phases then you should be prepared to dump toplevel library expressions that are not definitions. 21:37:17 jcowan, I don't pay attention to what the R6RS has screwed up. I'm talking about what you can actually do in real systems such as Scheme48 and Racket. 21:37:48 eli: What do you mean by dumping ... and so forth? 21:38:23 "such as" is rather misleading, as the list stops there AFAIK. 21:39:19 arcfide: Requiring a library doesn't execute it, unless you refer to one of its bindings. 21:39:22 sjamaan, riaxpander is a toy that needs to be rewritten and perhaps simplified and/or generalized a little, but I suggest that you read it, or at least take a look at some parts of it. Don't worry; there's no SYNTAX-CASE involved, and no mark/antimark explosions. 21:39:42 arcfide: IIRC, Aziz's reply to that was "just bind `run' to a function that does the side effects you want". 21:41:30 ymasory [~ymasory@c-76-99-55-224.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 21:41:37 Riastradh: Thank you. I will! 21:42:30 Riastradh: You are perilously close to saying "(not (and 'racket 'scheme48)), that's not Scheme. Pfui." 21:43:22 jcowan: I believe (AND 'RACKET 'SCHEME48) does not match any Scheme :) 21:43:51 I think Andre's other point about ER is more salient: it's hard to implement on top of psyntax systems. Fortunately, a system can be WG2-compliant even without doing ER, and even with doing syntax-case. 21:43:52 -!- blueadept [~blueadept@unaffiliated/blueadept] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 21:44:11 ecraven: Yes, thanks; s/and/or/ 21:44:13 blueadept [~blueadept@unaffiliated/blueadept] has joined #scheme 21:44:24 jcowan, isn't it a bit early to be making claims about what is and isn't wg2 compliant? 21:44:35 Technically yes. 21:45:07 -!- pdlogan [~patrick@174-25-37-137.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 21:45:11 However, I believe that WG2 has a consensus that all its modules will be optional with perhaps a handful of exceptions where there is a dependency of one on another. 21:45:14 s/modules/packages 21:45:34 tauntaun [~Crumpet@ool-44c72ce0.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #scheme 21:45:38 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-172-156.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 21:45:42 also, i think what Riastradh is saying is that some systems, such as Racket, Larceny, Chez and Scheme48, have put a lot of effort into having macro systems and module systems that play well together 21:46:04 and that those systems are where we should look for guidance 21:46:15 on the question of macros + modules 21:46:21 jcowan: given that, why is WG2 part of Scheme 2011, and not just a bunch of SRFIs ? 21:46:27 if thats not a stupid question 21:47:19 I can only answer in social terms: because WG2 was appointed by the Steering Committee, which was chosen by all Schemers who cared to participate in the election. 21:47:32 Some WG2 packages definitely will be SRFIs. 21:47:41 I see. 21:48:02 pdlogan [~patrick@174-25-37-137.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #scheme 21:49:55 (that is, existing SRFIs) 21:50:11 -!- Nisstyre [~nisstyre@infocalypse-net.info] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 21:50:13 It's also possible that some packages will be submitted as SRFIs. There are a lot of them. 21:50:30 astertronistic [~astertron@be-sun02.ic.ucsc.edu] has joined #scheme 21:50:38 -!- alexgordon [~alexgordo@beyond.conceited.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 21:51:22 samth: I don't have a problem, as I said, with asking the WG if they want to reopen these decisions. I'll probably vote in favor of reconsideration; I'm not sure how I'll vote on acceptance. 21:53:38 jcowan, I wasn't saying nobody else is Scheme. I was just pointing out that Scheme48 and Racket have useful capabilities in their macro systems as a consequence of providing explicit phasing in macro systems that were fairly carefully engineered. 21:54:34 I agree, if by "explicit phasing" you mean "fully separated phases"; that is, the same identifier may be given entirely different definitions at different phases. 21:54:44 I don't believe that there are any useful consequences of providing implicit phasing. 21:54:49 -!- stis [~stis@host-90-235-236-153.mobileonline.telia.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:54:49 Yes, that's what I mean. 21:54:55 It's the report's job to report on existing practice and standardize on what works, isn't it? 21:55:06 Up to a point. 21:55:35 Sometimes existing practice is not good enough, as in the case of the The Propeller "Genesee Chief". 21:55:55 Maybe it's still too early to standardize, and these things are being too forced right now 21:56:01 No, sorry, that was the wrong case. 21:57:02 Riastradh: Fully distinct phases is distinct from explicit/implicit phasing. It just so happens that the people who like explicit phasing tend to also go with distinct phases. 21:57:42 It was one in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that although it was not customary for ships to carry radios (at that time), it was nevertheless negligence to fail to do so. 21:58:35 Ah yes, the "T. J. Hooper". 21:59:01 The Genesee Chief case settled that the Great Lakes were subject to admiralty law because they communicated with the ocean, even though they were not tidal water. 21:59:11 arcfide, OK. When I said `explicit phasing' above, I meant `what Racket and Scheme48 do'. 22:00:10 "Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence, but strictly it is never its measure. A whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. . . . Courts must in the end say what is required. There are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission." 22:00:26 --Judge Learned Hand 22:00:41 s/Supreme Court/Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit/ 22:02:05 however, the good Judge Hand carried a bigger stick than the WGs 22:02:29 True. 22:03:00 :) 22:03:30 Maybe that's what's R6RS main problem; it moved too fast? 22:03:56 Can someone confirm that "what Racket and Scheme48 do" is "fully distinct phases" ? I don't know, and I'm just following along here... 22:04:05 jimrees_: I'm pretty sure that's what they do. 22:04:43 I'm also not convinced that things like Typed Scheme require distinct phases to be implemented, though the current implementation of Typed Scheme does require them. 22:05:44 thanks -- and out of curiosity would a system that automatically visited/instantiated different phases of the same library be incompatible with what Scheme48 and Racket do? 22:06:01 jimrees_: What do you mean there? 22:06:22 Also, there are three distinct things going on here: distinct phases, invokation semantics, and implicit/explicit phasing. 22:06:26 arcfide, I believe that the specification of Typed Racket requires statefulness of some variety, and that if you have stateful macros, you want separate phases, for the reasons given in Matthew's paper 22:06:48 I mean... if I left out the right (for ..) forms in my imports, would all the right things just happen, or is that question ill-defined? 22:07:02 jimrees_: 22:07:03 > ,config (define-structure x (export x) (open scheme) (for-syntax (open scheme) (begin (define a 0))) (begin (define a 1) (define-syntax x (lambda (e r c) `(,(r 'list) a ,a))))) ; no values returned 22:07:07 > ,in x (x) 22:07:09 '(1 0) 22:07:31 jcowan: Can you confirm whether changing the ( ) form of