00:01:17 depends on how dramatically you want to end it 00:01:58 *offby1* takes it slowly 00:03:22 you use scheme in your job? 00:04:21 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:06:19 Not I 00:06:20 alas 00:06:36 bleh123: this is irrelevant to my economic calculations. 00:06:50 lol 00:06:59 -!- ijp is now known as homie 00:07:23 if you had any sense you'd spend the 5 minutes and make 50 bucks instead of wasting your breath on some tirade about morality 00:07:28 -!- homie is now known as Guest79598 00:07:33 -!- Guest79598 is now known as ijp 00:07:40 bleh123: this is also irrelevant to any moral judgement! 00:08:09 You deal with the moral problems between yourself and your university. 00:08:20 It's a purely economical reasoning. 00:08:29 -!- samth [~samth@c-66-31-201-165.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 00:09:02 i'm an extremely good programmer, i already have a fucking job, i'm getting the piece of paper for purposes of promotion and happened to not have enough time to deal with this horseshit language i'll never use in my life to fill some credit requirement 00:09:07 People get fired all the time to be replaced by newly graduated ie. less paid people. 00:09:28 I hear that these days payment is inversely proportional to moral fibre 00:09:31 If you're a good programmer, then do the fucking assignment yourself! 00:09:57 don't have time to learn this crap at the moment 00:10:04 ijp: Well, in this instance, moral fibre can be backed with economic calculations :-) 00:10:08 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-79-176.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 00:10:17 bleh123: then don't expect the promotion at the moment. 00:10:22 Let people who know do the job. 00:10:26 and get the pay. 00:10:48 bleh123: If that was more the rule, we wouldn't be in the mess we are. 00:10:51 i will never have to use scheme in my line of work, nor will anyone that doesn't work in the educational sector 00:11:06 let's insult the very people we are trying to convince.... 00:11:07 Then don't learn it! 00:12:02 ijp: people who don't want to do their assignments? 00:12:03 unfortunately in society there are bullshit standards that call for so-called credential, in which there are bullshit outdated requirements irrelevant to the work involved 00:12:15 bleh123: fight it! 00:12:19 lol 00:12:23 nope, i play the game 00:12:35 Or rather, don't fight it, just do the economic calculation and make them pay for it! 00:12:37 no, you're trying to game the game 00:12:57 bleh123: I don't refuse to do your homework. I computed my price: $40 million dollars. 00:13:27 If you agree, I'll gladly give you my account number and wait for the transfer. 00:13:55 honestly i'd figure it out and do it myself i was just overly ambitious and gave myself very little time 00:14:03 its due in 3 hours 00:14:15 was unaware of how ridiculous scheme is 00:14:19 enjoy your current position 00:14:29 Banks are able to transfer money quite quickly nowadays 00:14:33 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 00:15:03 i'd pay $50, would take you probably under half an hour 00:15:30 yet you reject this out of some philosophical nonsense? 00:15:42 My cost is not only the time I'll spend on your homework. As I explained it, with your new diploma, you will be taking my job. Therefore my cost is the money I won't earn anymore. 00:15:59 except thats invalid because i'm already employed 00:17:08 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-79-176.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:17:40 i assume you're unemployed anyway, granted the fact you're hanging out in an irc channel dedicated to a programming language that has zero applications outside the world of education and extreme basement dwelling neckbeard nerdiness 00:17:59 As a TA, I'd be suspicious if a student who doesn't know Scheme turned in a #scheme-quality assignment. :) 00:18:23 i take it online 00:18:32 its the first ever assignment 00:18:40 no background criteria to compare with 00:19:15 well anyway, sorry to waste your time 00:20:38 -!- bleh123 [4a46056c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.70.5.108] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 00:21:26 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 00:21:59 interestingly, if he'd attempted it, and then posed as a student needing help, he'd probably have gotten it 00:22:46 Because that's different: I don't mind helping people becoming good. If they're better than myself, they may take my job! 00:23:08 What I object to is my job being taken by somebody less competent: this is not good for the society at large. 00:24:14 Yeah, also funny that he didn't realize insulting the channel members decreases any likelihood of getting help... 00:25:06 that, and not telling anyone what the hell he actually wants help with in non-abstract terms 00:37:23 dnolen [~user@cpe-98-14-92-234.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 00:41:00 hiato [~nine@clam.leg.uct.ac.za] has joined #scheme 00:43:54 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-233.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 00:47:58 -!- masm [~masm@bl18-36-133.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 00:52:23 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:54:20 lcc [~user@unaffiliated/lcc] has joined #scheme 00:56:42 -!- asdfhjkl [~bob@i5E879AE1.versanet.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:57:39 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-79-176.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 00:58:10 -!- tuubow [~adityavit@c-69-136-105-164.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 01:04:06 -!- ijp [~user@host86-174-97-142.range86-174.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Quit: The garbage collector got me] 01:15:01 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-79-176.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 01:19:20 is there a function to iterate many times over? 01:19:37 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 01:20:03 ie, i want to get the nth cadddddd.....r, do i have something like (car (repeat n cdr listiwanttogetnthelem)) ? 01:21:00 bfig: it's usually called nth. 01:21:23 rudybot: (list-ref (list 1 2 3 4) 3) 01:21:23 *offby1: ; Value: 4 01:21:25 Perhaps in a SFRI? Perhaps nthcar; Otherwise (car (nthcdr n l)) 01:21:52 pjb, cool! :) 01:22:28 offby1, great :) 01:22:32 thanks :) 01:23:43 bfig: list-ref _might_ not be standard 01:24:34 Yes, it is. r5rs. 01:28:39 -!- lcc [~user@unaffiliated/lcc] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 01:49:14 jake___ [~jake@c-71-198-241-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 01:50:25 wtetzner [~wtetzner@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 02:01:06 -!- toekutr [~user@50-0-51-2.dsl.static.sonic.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:03:54 -!- phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:04:26 -!- cdidd [~cdidd@95-27-253-60.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:08:41 -!- bitonic [~Francesco@93-40-82-201.ip37.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.5] 02:37:29 dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has joined #scheme 02:39:44 -!- jake___ [~jake@c-71-198-241-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 02:41:47 -!- dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 02:50:19 namoamitabuddha [~namoamita@unaffiliated/namoamitabuddha] has joined #scheme 02:50:47 Is there anybody familiar with signal-flowing diagram? 02:59:57 realitygrill [~realitygr@adsl-76-226-110-194.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 03:00:24 I'm guessing that's a "no" 03:08:18 It's described in SICP, but I don't think it's easy to know the diagram clearly. 03:13:10 futilius [~futilius_@wsip-174-79-240-86.sd.sd.cox.net] has joined #scheme 03:14:07 hi where can I find more information on Scheme Concurrency? 03:15:58 *ski* is unsure whether Termite is still working 03:16:55 (that one sporting an Erlang-inspired concurrency model. various implementations also have their own concurrency operations) 03:17:10 rudybot: seen yome 03:17:10 ski: No sign of yome 03:19:31 -!- arcfide [~arcfide@c-98-223-204-153.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:23:51 about-parallel: Butterfly scheme was a Scheme working on a parallel machine. 03:24:15 tuubow [~adityavit@c-69-136-105-164.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:26:34 cswords [~cswords@c-98-223-234-80.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 03:27:18 -!- namoamitabuddha [~namoamita@unaffiliated/namoamitabuddha] has left #scheme 03:36:10 -!- soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:41:00 soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has joined #scheme 03:45:01 ski: the "seen" database only goes back a week or so, but I can vouch for not having seen yome in yonks. 03:45:46 about-parallel: racket has made some tentative steps towards concurrency: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/concurrency.html 03:48:31 wollw [~davidsher@75-101-85-170.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net] has joined #scheme 03:52:20 dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has joined #scheme 03:55:33 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 04:00:33 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-204.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 04:03:23 tom_i [~thomasing@ingserv.demon.co.uk] has joined #scheme 04:08:13 ThePawnBreak [Cristi@94.177.108.25] has joined #scheme 04:09:04 -!- tomodo [~tomodo@gateway/tor-sasl/tomodo] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 04:10:10 -!- CampinSam [~CampinSam@24-176-98-217.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com] has quit [Quit: leaving] 04:14:30 lolcow [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 04:15:27 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-204.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 04:31:07 asdfhjkl [~bob@i5E879AE1.versanet.de] has joined #scheme 04:31:23 -!- realitygrill [~realitygr@adsl-76-226-110-194.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: realitygrill] 04:32:23 -!- forcer [~forcer@hmbg-5f764b1c.pool.mediaWays.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 04:32:40 -!- lolcow [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 04:36:17 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-204.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 04:40:51 -!- dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:41:07 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-204.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 04:45:08 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 04:52:32 Giomancer [~Gio@76.231.35.17] has joined #scheme 04:53:09 -!- Giomancer [~Gio@76.231.35.17] has left #scheme 04:59:46 -!- soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:06:11 preflex_ [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 05:08:09 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 05:08:13 -!- preflex_ is now known as preflex 05:13:56 realitygrill [~realitygr@adsl-76-226-120-41.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 05:19:50 ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has joined #scheme 05:21:52 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-180-107.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 05:22:05 -!- rudybot is now known as rudybot_ 05:22:11 -!- rudybot_ is now known as rudybot 05:22:43 -!- realitygrill [~realitygr@adsl-76-226-120-41.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: realitygrill] 05:24:04 -!- rudybot is now known as fsbot 05:25:10 -!- offby1 is now known as fledermaus 05:26:06 -!- fsbot is now known as fsbot_ 05:26:20 -!- fledermaus is now known as offby1 05:26:53 -!- fsbot_ is now known as rudybot_ 05:26:56 -!- rudybot_ is now known as rudybot 05:33:38 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-233.vinet.ba] has joined #scheme 05:41:17 -!- futilius [~futilius_@wsip-174-79-240-86.sd.sd.cox.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:45:09 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-55-233.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 05:52:37 -!- tuubow [~adityavit@c-69-136-105-164.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 05:59:58 adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 06:18:53 tuubow [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 06:27:07 -!- cozmic [cozmic@89-160-133-29.du.xdsl.is] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 06:40:25 -!- ttys0001 [~user@2001:19f8:20:2:e2f8:47ff:fe09:6a9a] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 06:42:51 -!- wollw [~davidsher@75-101-85-170.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:43:43 wollw [~davidsher@75-101-85-170.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net] has joined #scheme 06:43:55 -!- cataska [~cataska@210.64.6.233] has quit [Quit: leaving] 06:44:07 cataska [~cataska@210.64.6.233] has joined #scheme 06:51:45 mmc1 [~michal@178-85-63-71.dynamic.upc.nl] has joined #scheme 06:53:23 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@3ad50e34.broker.freenet6.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 07:11:43 -!- cataska [~cataska@210.64.6.233] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 07:15:09 -!- adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 07:31:18 -!- asdfhjkl [~bob@i5E879AE1.versanet.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:47:02 -!- pygospa [~Pygosceli@kiel-5f77b690.pool.mediaWays.net] has quit [Disconnected by services] 07:47:14 pygospa [~Pygosceli@kiel-5f77b2e2.pool.mediaWays.net] has joined #scheme 08:01:47 bfgun [~b_fin_g@r190-135-0-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #scheme 08:03:43 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 08:04:21 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 08:05:08 -!- bfig [~b_fin_g@r190-135-22-26.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 08:06:27 sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has joined #scheme 08:12:30 bigfg [~b_fin_g@r190-135-3-194.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #scheme 08:15:30 -!- bfgun [~b_fin_g@r190-135-0-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 08:20:37 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:20:55 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 08:22:06 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Client Quit] 08:25:14 cataska [~cataska@210.64.6.233] has joined #scheme 08:35:10 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 08:35:29 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 09:05:35 forcer [~forcer@hmbg-5f7647cd.pool.mediaWays.net] has joined #scheme 09:08:55 -!- tuubow [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 09:12:23 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-180-107.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 09:18:26 -!- sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:19:46 sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has joined #scheme 09:29:04 -!- sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 09:29:23 dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has joined #scheme 09:29:43 fschwidom [~fschwidom@46.115.12.226] has joined #scheme 09:30:22 sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has joined #scheme 09:31:45 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-185-69.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 09:41:07 keenbug [~daniel@p4FE3993B.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 10:05:34 -!- Euthydemus [~euthydemu@unaffiliated/euthydemus] has quit [Quit: leaving] 10:13:05 djcb [~user@a88-114-95-13.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 10:13:18 dzhus [~sphinx@176.14.94.92] has joined #scheme 10:19:56 -!- jao [~user@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 10:22:49 -!- dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:24:48 bitonic [~Francesco@93-40-69-65.ip37.fastwebnet.it] has joined #scheme 10:29:22 EbiDK [~ebi@3e6b71f5.rev.stofanet.dk] has joined #scheme 10:32:58 GoKhlaYeh [~GoKhlaYeh@235.31.80.79.rev.sfr.net] has joined #scheme 10:33:56 -!- EbiDK [~ebi@3e6b71f5.rev.stofanet.dk] has left #scheme 10:40:56 -!- kniu [~kniu@pool-173-75-156-3.pitbpa.east.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 10:44:39 -!- Quadrescence [~quad@unaffiliated/quadrescence] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:46:21 masm [~masm@bl18-36-133.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #scheme 10:46:51 madmuppet006 [~panzer@122-62-124-247.jetstream.xtra.co.nz] has joined #scheme 11:11:10 stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has joined #scheme 11:24:31 elderK [~k@pdpc/supporter/active/elderk] has joined #scheme 11:24:33 Hey guys? 11:24:42 Anyone here have any tips on binary IO handling in Scheme? 11:24:58 It's great for just dealing with reading text and stuff but so far I'm yet to find any real way of reading structured binary data. 11:25:05 Say bitmap files or things of that ilk. 11:25:18 Without say, dropping down into C or having to do a bunch of translations and subvectoring then to blobs, etc. 11:25:28 Or reading byte by byte then translating 11:32:21 -!- karswell [~coat@93-97-29-243.zone5.bethere.co.uk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:39:55 -!- fschwidom [~fschwidom@46.115.12.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:43:22 -!- elderK [~k@pdpc/supporter/active/elderk] has left #scheme 11:43:23 karswell [~coat@93-97-29-243.zone5.bethere.co.uk] has joined #scheme 12:02:15 ijp [~user@host86-171-129-108.range86-171.btcentralplus.com] has joined #scheme 12:07:09 lolcow [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 12:09:07 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 12:12:07 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@37.99.85.62] has joined #scheme 12:12:07 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@37.99.85.62] has quit [Changing host] 12:12:07 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 12:16:42 soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has joined #scheme 12:17:43 -!- sharkbird [~user@67-220-6-139.usiwireless.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:21:54 sharkbird [~user@67-220-6-139.usiwireless.com] has joined #scheme 12:22:42 -!- lolcow [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 12:27:05 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-4-179.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 12:31:01 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 12:32:20 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@37.99.85.62] has joined #scheme 12:32:21 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@37.99.85.62] has quit [Changing host] 12:32:21 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 12:33:13 cdidd [~cdidd@95-24-203-18.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 12:38:53 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 12:39:45 samth [~samth@c-66-31-201-165.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 12:50:42 pyro- [~pyro@zhaozhou.dcollins.info] has joined #scheme 12:54:02 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@37.99.85.62] has joined #scheme 12:54:02 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@37.99.85.62] has quit [Changing host] 12:54:03 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 12:57:45 asdfhjkl [~bob@i5E879AE1.versanet.de] has joined #scheme 12:58:36 -!- dnolen [~user@cpe-98-14-92-234.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 13:02:55 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-4-179.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 13:06:33 leppie [~lolcow@196-215-4-179.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 13:12:01 ijp` [~user@host109-154-210-253.range109-154.btcentralplus.com] has joined #scheme 13:13:32 -!- ijp [~user@host86-171-129-108.range86-171.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 13:19:41 dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has joined #scheme 13:33:49 -!- soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:48:39 soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has joined #scheme 13:49:17 adrokukuh [~adrokuku@212.5.131.212] has joined #scheme 13:50:51 -!- cmatei [~cmatei@95.76.22.68] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:51:17 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-215-4-179.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:52:18 phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has joined #scheme 13:52:43 -!- adrokukuh [~adrokuku@212.5.131.212] has quit [Quit: Bye] 13:55:49 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 14:03:18 -!- bitonic [~Francesco@93-40-69-65.ip37.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.5] 14:11:31 wingo [~wingo@wsip-70-184-103-23.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 14:17:07 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 14:19:44 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@87.247.56.207] has joined #scheme 14:19:44 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@87.247.56.207] has quit [Changing host] 14:19:44 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 14:20:37 _schulte_ [~eschulte@c-174-56-50-60.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 14:29:50 -!- samth [~samth@c-66-31-201-165.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:31:09 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 14:36:43 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 14:37:18 airolson [~airolson@CPE00222d55a738-CM00222d55a735.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 14:40:45 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 14:43:58 -!- dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:46:29 dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has joined #scheme 14:48:29 -!- wingo [~wingo@wsip-70-184-103-23.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 14:52:24 wingo [~wingo@wsip-70-184-103-23.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 14:52:57 leo2007 [~leo@123.123.252.159] has joined #scheme 14:55:15 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-179-88.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 14:57:45 -!- ijp` is now known as ijp 14:59:08 namoamitabuddha [~namoamita@unaffiliated/namoamitabuddha] has joined #scheme 14:59:37 How to understand http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/ch3-Z-G-49.gif 14:59:51 -!- phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 15:00:25 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 15:08:47 ttys0001 [~user@2001:19f8:20:2:e2f8:47ff:fe09:6a9a] has joined #scheme 15:09:13 -!- airolson [~airolson@CPE00222d55a738-CM00222d55a735.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [] 15:13:23 GreatGoof [~GreatGoof@117.192.48.110] has joined #scheme 15:13:39 -!- GreatGoof [~GreatGoof@117.192.48.110] has left #scheme 15:20:34 kuribas [~user@d54C43316.access.telenet.be] has joined #scheme 15:36:00 -!- madmuppet006 [~panzer@122-62-124-247.jetstream.xtra.co.nz] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 15:37:19 -!- leo2007 [~leo@123.123.252.159] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 15:38:24 ttys0001` [~user@2001:19f8:20:1:ca2a:14ff:fe0f:b01b] has joined #scheme 15:39:06 Cheery [~cheery@a88-113-48-33.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 15:40:19 -!- ttys0001 [~user@2001:19f8:20:2:e2f8:47ff:fe09:6a9a] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 15:40:53 -!- tom_i [~thomasing@ingserv.demon.co.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 15:40:58 I try come up with operational transformations for tagged, nested lists. 15:41:42 hm.. found a paper by searching.. reading it before getting further. :) 15:42:43 "Generating Operational Transformation to the Standard" 15:43:08 tupi [~david@189.67.248.65] has joined #scheme 15:43:21 https://www.google.fi/search?q=Generating+Operational+Transformation+Standard 15:43:21 http://tinyurl.com/6pe4wj6 15:43:43 whoops. 'Generalizing' 15:48:46 tom_i [~thomasing@ingserv.demon.co.uk] has joined #scheme 15:49:59 -!- ijp [~user@host109-154-210-253.range109-154.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:51:21 dnolen [~user@12.130.123.134] has joined #scheme 15:53:36 namoamitabuddha: IIRC, it is some kind of analog computation. 15:54:09 namoamitabuddha: the considering that it is a book about CS, analog computations can be ignored. 15:54:45 namoamitabuddha: once you start messing with analog computations, it because physics and philosophy, imho. 15:57:41 -!- Nisstyre [~yours@c-208-90-102-250.netflash.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:58:25 -!- sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 15:59:53 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 16:02:36 airolson [~airolson@CPE00222d55a738-CM00222d55a735.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 16:04:19 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 16:04:40 sawjig [~sawjig@gateway/tor-sasl/sawjig] has joined #scheme 16:07:03 albacker [~eni@unaffiliated/enyx] has joined #scheme 16:07:21 -!- stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has quit [Read error: Connection timed out] 16:08:49 stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has joined #scheme 16:11:31 kk` [~kk@unaffiliated/kk/x-5380134] has joined #scheme 16:11:41 Nisstyre [~yours@c-208-90-102-250.netflash.net] has joined #scheme 16:14:56 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 16:17:33 rly: IIRC? 16:17:38 -!- maahes [~maahes@cpe-98-148-196-131.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 16:20:31 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-160.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 16:24:01 ijp [~user@host31-52-140-53.range31-52.btcentralplus.com] has joined #scheme 16:24:53 mark_weaver [~user@209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 16:25:34 namoamitabuddha: I disagree with rly. Everything in SICP is there for a good reason. 16:26:33 it's just another way of describing a procedure on streams 16:27:28 the arrows are functions of multiple streams to a single stream, and boxes are functions of a single stream to single stream 16:27:51 arrows that go off the end are outputs, and those that come in are inputs to the function 16:28:15 use them if they are helpful, ignore them if not 16:31:20 mark_weaver: mark at here please, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9965798/how-to-deeply-understand-the-signal-flow-diagram-described-in-sicp 16:31:20 http://tinyurl.com/7vdyb74 16:31:38 -!- namoamitabuddha [~namoamita@unaffiliated/namoamitabuddha] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.7] 16:35:37 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 16:37:07 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-160.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:40:04 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 16:43:19 tomodo [~tomodo@gateway/tor-sasl/tomodo] has joined #scheme 16:45:49 -!- ttys0001` [~user@2001:19f8:20:1:ca2a:14ff:fe0f:b01b] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:46:27 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-24.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 16:48:11 -!- wingo [~wingo@wsip-70-184-103-23.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 16:48:52 wingo [~wingo@wsip-70-184-103-23.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 16:51:12 -!- soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:53:44 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-160.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 17:02:31 soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has joined #scheme 17:02:37 realitygrill [~realitygr@adsl-76-226-120-143.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 17:05:45 -!- dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:10:32 CampinSam [~CampinSam@24-176-98-217.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com] has joined #scheme 17:17:22 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 17:19:41 bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 17:29:19 -!- leppie [~lolcow@196-210-165-160.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 17:31:10 -!- airolson [~airolson@CPE00222d55a738-CM00222d55a735.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [] 17:32:32 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@ip70-162-88-143.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 17:32:32 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@ip70-162-88-143.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Changing host] 17:32:32 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 17:32:57 -!- kk` [~kk@unaffiliated/kk/x-5380134] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.7] 17:34:00 leppie [~lolcow@196-210-191-28.dynamic.isadsl.co.za] has joined #scheme 17:37:35 kudkudyak [~user@94.72.138.25] has joined #scheme 17:43:20 -!- sharkbird [~user@67-220-6-139.usiwireless.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 17:49:29 floater [~e30dd50ec@nude.lesbianbath.com] has joined #scheme 17:49:31 tuubow [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 17:57:07 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 18:02:14 -!- zxq9 [~zxq9@FL1-119-244-165-111.okn.mesh.ad.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:05:02 -!- dnolen [~user@12.130.123.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 249 seconds] 18:11:54 pchrist_ [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #scheme 18:14:19 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 18:16:57 tuubow_ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 18:17:40 -!- tuubow [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 18:23:22 -!- tuubow_ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 18:27:33 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 18:29:14 tuubow_ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 18:32:44 -!- ijp [~user@host31-52-140-53.range31-52.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 18:39:39 bas_ [~bas@5352A3FB.cm-6-3c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has joined #scheme 18:39:50 -!- bas_ is now known as Skola 18:43:19 fschwidom [~fschwidom@46.115.12.226] has joined #scheme 18:57:18 -!- tupi [~david@189.67.248.65] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 19:00:18 -!- noam [~noam@213.57.83.2] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 19:00:50 bfgun [~b_fin_g@r186-52-191-77.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #scheme 19:01:12 -!- wingo [~wingo@wsip-70-184-103-23.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 19:01:24 noam [~noam@213.57.83.2] has joined #scheme 19:01:49 -!- bigfg [~b_fin_g@r190-135-3-194.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 19:13:26 -!- pchrist_ [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [Quit: leaving] 19:14:10 -!- albacker [~eni@unaffiliated/enyx] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:14:12 pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #scheme 19:17:38 jcowan [~John@cpe-66-108-19-185.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 19:21:26 -!- tom_i [~thomasing@ingserv.demon.co.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 19:26:22 FreeArtMan [~fam@93.177.213.54] has joined #scheme 19:35:34 djcb` [~user@a88-114-95-13.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 19:37:05 phax [~phax@cpc14-haye17-2-0-cust110.haye.cable.virginmedia.com] has joined #scheme 19:37:06 -!- phax [~phax@cpc14-haye17-2-0-cust110.haye.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Changing host] 19:37:06 phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has joined #scheme 19:38:28 kk` [~kk@unaffiliated/kk/x-5380134] has joined #scheme 19:38:33 cmatei [~cmatei@95.76.22.68] has joined #scheme 19:40:29 -!- Nisstyre [~yours@c-208-90-102-250.netflash.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:43:19 samth [~samth@c-66-31-201-165.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 19:53:11 -!- djcb` [~user@a88-114-95-13.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:53:11 -!- djcb [~user@a88-114-95-13.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:55:00 Nisstyre [~yours@c-208-90-102-250.netflash.net] has joined #scheme 19:58:27 hoi 20:01:19 ColonelJ [~shardfire@pdpc/supporter/student/colonelj] has joined #scheme 20:01:36 "{{1 2 3} {4 5 6} {7 8 9}} @{{x y z}>{elem1s elem2s elem3s}}" gives x=1 y=2 z=3 elem1s={4 7} elem2s={5 8} elem3s={6 9} 20:01:58 yes 20:02:42 rudybot: eval (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((foo (x y z) (elem1s elem2s elem3s) ...) '(x y z elem1s elem2s elem3s)))) 20:02:43 ski: your scheme sandbox is ready 20:02:43 ski: error: #:1:86: syntax: missing ellipses with pattern variable in template in: elem1s 20:02:57 oh, right 20:03:07 rudybot: eval (define-syntax foo (syntax-rules () ((foo (x y z) (elem1s elem2s elem3s) ...) '(x y z (elem1s ...) (elem2s ...) (elem3s ...))))) 20:03:08 ski: Done. 20:03:12 -!- fschwidom [~fschwidom@46.115.12.226] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:03:25 rudybot: eval (foo (1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9)) 20:03:25 ski: ; Value: (1 2 3 (4 7) (5 8) (6 9)) 20:03:32 like that 20:03:43 ah that's nice looks like pretty much the same idea 20:04:16 anyway kinda stumbled on it when I was thinking how to be able to handle my weird regular expression system and trying to retrieve the results 20:04:47 was using an external pattern to match with the structure of the fields within the expression 20:06:54 problem being that it's not possible to return just a tuple of the individual subfields as that binding is reserved for getting the matched string, so having this projection list binding is a good way to circumvent that problem and actually applies quite nicely in general 20:11:20 rudybot: eval (define-syntax bar (syntax-rules () ((bar (a b ...) (c d ...) ...) '(a (b ...) (c ...) ((d ...) ...))))) 20:11:20 ski: Done. 20:11:23 rudybot: eval (bar (a0 a1 a2) (b0 b1 b2) (c0 c1 c2)) 20:11:23 ski: ; Value: (a0 (a1 a2) (b0 c0) ((b1 b2) (c1 c2))) 20:11:37 that shows how you can nest `...' 20:11:57 you can also "zip" in addition to "unzip", with it 20:13:11 hah that's weird 20:14:47 *ski* isn't sure what ColonelJ means by "it's not possible to return just a tuple of the individual subfields as that binding is reserved for getting the matched string" 20:15:11 yea it's a bit of a hack 20:15:34 it's not a true pattern 20:16:22 if you have /(Hello/Goodbye) good (sir/madam),/ 20:16:59 the top level binding matches the whole string like "Hello good sir" but if you pattern match it to a list instead you get the list of subfields 20:17:18 so here it would be {"Hello" "sir"} 20:17:38 *ski* thinks this all sounds very strange 20:17:54 it's troublesome but seems to work 20:18:04 I'm still playing with the ideas 20:18:35 with general patterns you have the awkward situation of what to do when you have a repeated identifier 20:18:37 i think it might be more sensible to embed identifiers into the regex, which will get bound to the respecting phrases 20:18:57 rudybot: (regexp-match #rx"(Hello|Goodbye) good (sir|madam)" "Hello good sir") 20:18:58 cky: your sandbox is ready 20:18:58 cky: ; Value: ("Hello good sir" "Hello" "sir") 20:19:27 http://i.imgur.com/ifkMQ.jpg 20:19:29 ColonelJ : check that the corresponding phrases are equal ? 20:19:30 the problem is where you have a ( )* around the whole thing 20:19:37 this is already good.. but I don't know where I got it. 20:19:45 but I guess it would be susceptible to such an approach 20:19:47 well, `*' should probably be treated in a similar way as `...' above 20:20:02 and yea ski, I think checking for equality is the obvious thing to do, but then the question is what does equal mean? 20:20:19 and unfortunately pattern equality and value equality (dynamically dispatched) are not the same thing 20:20:32 and the latter is the one it seems you'd want most 20:21:04 this is another situation where pattern matching to a list explicitly causes you to bind to something different 20:21:12 well, equality of the respective substrings, i meant 20:21:30 that's fine for strings because in that case the two kinds of equality are the same 20:21:34 (since the identifiers would be bound to substrings, not to regexen) 20:21:43 the problem is when other types get involved where this doesn't hold 20:21:53 e.g. ? 20:21:57 also, the identifiers do NOT get bound to substrings in my regex system always 20:22:27 *ski* doesn't understand what "pattern matching to a list explicitly" means 20:22:47 matching List as opposed to matching First::Rest 20:23:00 First::Rest is explicitly a list, whereas List on its own can actually match anything 20:23:14 oh, you mean matching on a cons pattern, it seems 20:23:26 close, but not quit 20:23:31 (you know the empty list is also a list, right ?) 20:23:37 it's just that in most languages that's the only way to match a list like that 20:23:58 actually, no that's a lie 20:24:08 in prolog for example you have [ |List] 20:24:16 assuming that's valid I can't remember 20:24:35 no, you have `[A|As]' as well as `[A0,A1|As]' (which is sugar) 20:24:40 normally it would be like [X,Y,Z | Rest] yea 20:24:58 {X Y Z > Rest} being the equivalent for me 20:25:09 i see 20:25:13 but I permit {> List} which is what I meant by explicitly matching a list 20:25:23 ok 20:25:32 (and i assume the system isn't statically typed ?) 20:25:44 optional type 20:25:53 it's meant to be able to do some type inference and such 20:26:01 mhm 20:26:17 but the type is irrelevant here because the List and {>List} bindings mean different things 20:26:22 (you maybe would like to look at Typed Scheme) 20:26:31 why ? 20:26:36 the reason for this is that {>List} is able to match things which aren't lists at all! 20:26:53 it's a coercion 20:26:53 and `List' isn't ? 20:27:14 List just matches whatever is there, whatever type it is 20:27:30 {>List} takes the list out of it 20:27:37 rudybot: (match '(1 2 3) [(? list? a) a]) 20:27:37 asumu: your sandbox is ready 20:27:37 asumu: ; Value: (1 2 3) 20:27:40 like that? 20:27:41 but `{> List}' will coerce a sequence type to a list ? 20:28:13 it's a bit different 20:28:35 basically all objects have an internal representation which is what the list represents 20:28:54 for the purposes of pattern matching 20:29:22 for example a complex number could be defined to be a 2-tuple (list of 2 elements) with some associated methods 20:29:36 (hm, are you trying to mix structural pattern-matching with regexen ?) 20:29:50 if you do {> List} on it you'll get the coefficients, but lose all the functions 20:29:59 and yes, to what you just said 20:30:16 hm, wouldn't such matching break encapsulation ? 20:30:32 *ski* finds it strange, regardless 20:30:48 it doesn't because the definition defines what stuff is available in this internal representation 20:31:01 dnolen [~user@12.130.122.223] has joined #scheme 20:31:02 a fully encapsulated object would just leave nothing 20:31:20 for a complex number it makes sense to expose the coefficients in this way for the purposes of pattern matching 20:31:37 so you can e.g. match all numbers where the imaginary part = 0 20:31:51 with a simple pattern of {X,0} 20:32:18 mhm 20:32:23 also, the identifiers do NOT get bound to substrings in my regex system always 20:32:27 so what do identifiers get bound to, otherwise ? 20:32:40 ah this is a very non-standard regex feature 20:32:44 maybe you're talking about non-regex here 20:32:57 you are allowed to call external functions on sublists as part of the regex 20:33:02 for parsing purposes mainly 20:33:10 the function can return something of any type 20:33:25 this is incredibly useful for parsing programs 20:33:47 the result you want is a parse tree not a list 20:33:52 *not a string 20:35:06 anyway even perl broke away from its own regex legacy in perl 6 20:35:12 djcb [~user@a88-114-95-13.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 20:35:33 so well regular regex are just not great 20:35:34 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 20:35:35 ok 20:37:28 so, i would probably use a structural equality, then 20:38:16 no because to build the structure you need to be outside of the regex world 20:38:38 and structural equality doesn't make sense as I said, the bindings need to allow you to get the matched strings 20:39:12 the structures are build through recursion (and obviously regex can act recursively in this system) 20:39:21 maahes [~maahes@cpe-98-148-196-131.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 20:39:37 why wouldn't structural equality make sense ? 20:41:08 you can't have both the list of subfields and the whole outer matched string with the same pattern if you use structural equality 20:41:10 -!- tuubow_ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 20:41:38 not sure we're talking about the same thing here because I kinda changed the context of what I meant with structural equality 20:42:56 anyway back to the original argument on structural equality, if you have a fully encapsulated object the structural equality would only match the internally provided info which is just {} so these abstract objects cannot be compared 20:43:07 so you definitely don't want to use structural equality there 20:43:41 -!- FreeArtMan [~fam@93.177.213.54] has quit [Quit: Out of this 3D] 20:44:13 the pattern system can't access the real structure which is encapsulated away from view 20:44:14 *ski* isn't sure either whether we're talking past each other 20:44:36 maybe try rephrasing :) 20:44:54 ttys0001` [~user@2001:19f8:20:2:e2f8:47ff:fe09:6a9a] has joined #scheme 20:45:13 i don't understand "you can't have both the list of subfields and the whole outer matched string with the same pattern if you use structural equality" -- why would this be a good thing (if i understood correctly what you meant) ? 20:45:50 well a programmer might want one or the other, or even both 20:46:19 if you use a consistent pattern matching system you can only have one 20:46:30 re encapsulated objects, i see your point -- you could handle this by either forbidding this case, or using a user-defined "behavioural structural equality" if present 20:46:55 tuubow_ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 20:46:57 yea I was thinking the latter 20:47:15 but how to detect whether to use the user-defined one is another open problem for me 20:47:20 when would you want to have "the list of subfields" ? 20:47:25 when using `*' ? 20:47:38 even when you're not you still need that list 20:47:51 though it would be of fixed length in the case of a single instance 20:48:42 *ski* doesn't follow 20:48:50 example ? 20:48:52 anyway the reason you want to actually have that list, is so you can access the subfields 20:49:12 couldn't you instead label them with identifiers directly ? 20:49:22 -!- kuribas [~user@d54C43316.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 20:49:33 possibly, but I didn't consider that yet 20:49:43 that might be a better way of doing it 20:49:51 *might* 20:50:07 seems more sane to me than constructing tuples/lists of them, only to take them apart immediately 20:50:46 I agree in theory 20:50:46 (another thing is if you want to put them inside a new object in the pattern directly, not taking it apart immediately afterwards) 20:50:52 I'm trying to remember what the reason was 20:50:57 for doing it this way 20:51:41 probably mainly because originally I was trying to stick to normal regex syntax and have the extensions outside 20:52:13 as for reusing it in the pattern the scope of the identifiers covers the regex too 20:52:50 (imho, normal regex syntax isn't that useful for more than recognition) 20:53:14 well yea I decided it wasn't useful and already had to extend it just for the recursive aspect 20:53:34 "reusing it in the pattern" -- "it" being ? 20:54:00 some matched subfield 20:54:30 i'm not seeing the point of that sentence 20:55:07 never mind then, what did you mean with [21:50] (another thing is if you want to put them inside a new object in the pattern directly, not taking it apart immediately afterwards) 20:55:39 wingo [~wingo@67.106.254.3.ptr.us.xo.net] has joined #scheme 20:57:45 anyway, having the identifiers inside the regex itself seems like something worth thinking about 20:58:10 but there must be downsides as with anything? 20:58:29 well, i meant if you wanted to match a couple of fields, and instead of getting the results into a corresponding couple of identifiers, you wanted to immediately wrap them in some sort of object, and only name that with an identifier 20:59:18 ouch that's complicated 20:59:20 well, if you have identifiers inside the regex, then you can't specify the regex with a string of course (but possibly you aren't doing that already) 20:59:33 that's true 20:59:43 yes, .. just something you said seemed to imply that you wanted to allow this as well 20:59:45 and the thing about it not being a string 20:59:50 you're right 21:00:13 but it seems a lot easier to do that outside of the regex by having a subroutine to deal with that (including the regex of that part) 21:00:33 then you can just invoke the subroutine from the parent regex and it will work fine 21:01:11 you are allowed to call external functions on sublists as part of the regex for parsing purposes mainly the function can return something of any type this is incredibly useful for parsing programs 21:01:15 (that one) 21:01:25 yes absolutely that's something you want to do 21:01:57 but constructing parse trees is rather outside the scope of the regex itself 21:02:01 that seemed to me you wanted to allow calling an external function inside the pattern, to package up the results of sub-patterns into a single result (which could then be bound to an identifier) 21:02:23 I didn't want to do it inside the pattern 21:02:33 and doing inside the pattern seems a bit much 21:02:35 ok 21:03:02 (then i'm not sure why you sais "external functions" .. external to what, if not to the pattern ?) 21:03:19 yea sure you can call external stuff 21:04:06 Wbat's the problem? 21:04:07 how I have it intending to work is the external function is given/matched to a substring and returns a result 21:04:13 @ColoneJ 21:04:26 I don't know tomodo we're just chatting ;) 21:05:11 *ski* supposes this discussion isn't really Scheme-related atm, so maybe it would be preferred if it continued elsewhere 21:05:28 #starpial then 21:05:32 I just watned to be able to follow it 21:05:33 ColonelJ : but the (name of the) external function isn't placed inside the pattern, then ? 21:05:39 cause I cant understand anything you say 21:05:57 it's too much for me to bother explaining it all again 21:06:08 ok 21:06:10 tomodo : it's about pattern-matching, both structural and regex-like 21:06:15 ski: yes the name of the function is in the pattern 21:06:25 e.g. /{noun} {verb} {noun}/ 21:06:34 they could call external functions noun and verb 21:06:50 ColonelJ : so can't you use that to call an external function on the results of sub-matches then ? 21:07:12 yes I suppose so 21:07:44 tomodo : apparently ColonelJ is trying to design such a matching system. i was attempting to give some opinion and advice on it 21:08:07 ColonelJ : how would that look like (e.g.) ? 21:08:46 (tomodo : fyi, the relation to Scheme, a bit up, was the `...' notation in `syntax-rules' (and `syntax-case' as well, i think)) 21:09:22 I have no idea because I don't have a syntax to bind identifiers within the regex itself 21:09:25 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@3ad50e34.broker.freenet6.net] has joined #scheme 21:09:45 mhm 21:10:26 but you could have /(z*) (k*) {makesomething zs ks}/{zs ks result} 21:10:30 I suppose 21:10:33 (i think you could do this without having that -- above `{noun}' presumably calls the external function `noun' with zero arguments coming from sub-matches) 21:11:05 where would submatches come from? that wasn't really how things worked 21:11:38 -!- ThePawnBreak [Cristi@94.177.108.25] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:11:39 well, i was thinking of something like `/blah {make-something {z*} {k*}} bleh/' 21:11:44 /(z*) (k*) {makesomething(zs,ks)}/{zs ks result} 21:12:11 yea I can see what you're thinking but not sure it fits yet 21:12:19 *ski* nods 21:12:19 cool idea though 21:15:02 /(#zs# z*) (#ks# k*) {#result# makesomething(zs,ks)}/ 21:16:52 (hm, Hexstream in #lisp had something slightly related, for XML, printing instead of matching : "Implementation of PRINT-XAPPING with my FORMAT replacement concept" ) 21:17:42 ColonelJ : could `result' there also consume input, apart from the one consumed while constructing `zs' and `ks' ? 21:18:27 yea actually there it would consume input 21:18:49 -!- mmc1 [~michal@178-85-63-71.dynamic.upc.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 21:18:58 interesting 21:19:19 but if the function is defined not to consume input then it will reject everything except the null string 21:19:54 yeah, but other parts of the pattern could then consume the rest of the input 21:20:00 sure 21:20:28 anyway I'm still not clear on how this would work within a ( )* 21:20:42 does `(#zs# z*)' mean to match the same sub-input to both the `#zs#' and the `z*' patterns ? 21:20:46 -!- stis [~stis@1-1-1-39a.veo.vs.bostream.se] has left #scheme 21:20:46 because then I suppose the zs and ks should bind to the list of whatever they get 21:21:25 it matches with z* 21:21:35 zs gets bound to something on other depending on how it's defined 21:21:37 well, in `syntax-rules', if you match on `((a b) ...)', this means that `a' and `b' *implicitly* will stand for a sequence of items 21:22:01 yes so like that 21:22:11 but it has to be that by definition 21:22:14 implicitly 21:22:30 so things don't generalize that well and it becomes context dependent 21:22:54 this means that you can't just use `a' in the output, you have to use it inside an `...', like e.g. `((a = 42) ...)', meaning that you'll get a list of the same length, with each element being `(a = 42)' with `a' replaced with eaxh successive value of the implicit sequence 21:22:55 maybe that's a good argument not to have the identifiers inline 21:23:29 i'm not sure what you mean by "so things don't generalize that well and it becomes context dependent" 21:23:46 well if you have /(#zs# z*) (#ks# k*) {#result# makesomething(zs,ks)}/ and that works 21:24:03 if you have /((#zs# z*) (#ks# k*) {#result# makesomething(zs,ks)})*/ it doesn't work 21:24:29 why not ? 21:24:39 zs and ks are implicitly lists no? 21:24:57 yes, so for each binding of `zs' and `ks', `makesomething' would be called 21:25:25 since the binding of `zs' and `ks', as well as the uses of them, are all inside the (outer) `*', there is no trouble here 21:25:48 so you're saying have the individual instance within the * and the whole list outside of it? 21:25:50 it's just like if you make a loop, and define two local variables inside the loop, and use them (only) inside the loop 21:26:10 oh ok I was thinking the identifiers were global 21:26:20 well, they could be as well 21:26:28 but they weren't in your example above 21:26:44 so what would global ones look like 21:27:01 I never said the regex had its own scope 21:27:12 so it's effectively global 21:27:14 /((#zs# z*) (#ks# k*))* {#result# makesomething(zs,ks)}/ 21:27:18 this would be bad 21:27:29 since the uses of `zs' and `ks' is not inside a `*' 21:27:48 ok but what if you want to use them outside of the regex 21:27:54 /((#zs# z*) (#ks# k*))* {#result# makesomething(zs*,ks*)}/ 21:27:58 something like that would be oko 21:28:02 s/oko/ok/ 21:28:06 ah I see 21:28:18 very interesting indeed 21:28:18 similarly for using them outside the regex 21:28:24 you could also say 21:28:34 /((#zs# z*) (#ks# k*))* {#result# makesomething((zs,ks)*)}/ 21:28:55 which would pair each corresponding `zs' and `ks' together, and make a list of them 21:28:59 /((#zs# z*) (#ks# k*))* {#result# makesomething(foo(zs,ks)*)}/ 21:29:14 would also work, calling `foo' on each corresponding pair, making a list of the results 21:29:46 the syntax would probably have to be amended a little bit, to better distinguish between patterns and ordinary expressions -- but hopefully you get the idea 21:30:12 yea unfortunately the real expressions of the target language have nothing to do with this regex business 21:30:18 ColonelJ : anyway, i suggest you read and play a little with `...' in `syntax-rules' to understand how it works 21:30:26 no I understand that fine 21:30:26 what i'm suggesting here is basically the same thing 21:30:32 and I understand what you're saying here 21:30:34 -!- ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 21:30:40 fine 21:30:46 just not sure it's applicable to my language unfortunately 21:31:30 "unfortunately the real expressions of the target language have nothing to do with this regex business" -- which is why one'd need to have a way to change `foo(zs,ks) *' there into something more explicit 21:31:58 right 21:32:21 anyway, what i'm suggestion amounts to baking the pattern syntax into the language (but still distinguishing between patterns and expressions) -- maybe you don't want to do that, i dunno 21:32:38 well I already have the {>{zs,ks}} 21:32:44 which I already explained 21:34:42 so you could rebind it to some other identifier to use it directly "@list\{>{zs,ks}} foo(list)" 21:35:16 wait that's probably not what you meant 21:35:34 yea not sure how it work 21:36:46 hm 21:36:50 albacker [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 21:36:51 -!- albacker [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Changing host] 21:36:51 albacker [~eni@unaffiliated/enyx] has joined #scheme 21:36:53 sharkbird [~user@67-220-6-139.usiwireless.com] has joined #scheme 21:37:15 "(zs,ks) zipWith[foo]" would be how it would be written 21:37:23 rather `{foo(zs,ks) ...}' or `{foo(zs,ks) *}' or something like that, i think 21:37:55 (with the curly brackets denoting a list, here) 21:38:04 ah ok 21:38:16 I actually have a .. operator 21:38:48 but that actually spills values into the list 21:39:11 and * is multiply of course 21:40:58 what would the type of zs or ks actually be 21:41:38 -!- wingo [~wingo@67.106.254.3.ptr.us.xo.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:44:43 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-185-69.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:45:52 -!- phax [~phax@unaffiliated/phax] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 21:47:00 -!- dnolen [~user@12.130.122.223] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 21:49:03 -!- jcowan [~John@cpe-66-108-19-185.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 21:50:53 ColonelJ : well, consider `/(#zs# z*)/' -- here i assume `zs' is either a list of characters, or a (sub-)string 21:51:37 so in the case above, `zs' would (say) be a (sub-)string, but would actually "secretly" be a sequence of such strings 21:52:10 meaning that `zs' will act as if it was a string, but code containing it will run once for each string in the implicit sequence 21:52:29 so in `{zs ...}', this is a (non-implicit) sequence of strings 21:52:51 and in `{f(zs) ...}' `f' is called many times, on a string each time 21:53:50 erjiang [~erjiang@2001:18e8:2:10f4:7a2b:cbff:fea3:da09] has joined #scheme 21:54:08 yea that's right but well it's just kinda... meta 21:55:29 hehe 21:55:46 my language is very much anti-meta 21:56:19 doesn't even have much syntax 21:56:19 *ski* doesn't really think it is meta, but can understand why it might appear so 21:56:33 yea I think you're right it's not really meta it's just a pattern 21:56:55 anyway, it certainly complicates the language 21:57:15 and when your language is very simple like mine there's not really anything to do with it 21:57:17 simpler would be to only allow (effectively) `{zs ...}', but not `{f(zs) ...}' 21:57:41 simpler still would be to just make zs a list 21:57:46 then inside the `*' `zs' would be a single thing, and outside you'd have to always use it as `{zs ...}' (meaning the list of things) 21:57:54 or that 21:58:02 ColonelJ : except that i think that doesn't make sense 21:58:29 whether `zs' is a list or not shouldn't depend on whether the pattern that binds it is surrounded by `*'s or not, imo 21:58:30 it doesn't within the * 21:58:30 ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has joined #scheme 21:58:39 I agree with that 21:59:06 if you automagically translate it to a list outside the `*', then i think that's more benign 21:59:17 but that's never a problem or a source of confusion if the identifiers are bound external to the regex 21:59:47 which is how things are now, but you lose the ability to mess around inside the regex 22:00:08 s/are bound external/aren't in scope inside/ ? 22:00:37 umm no 22:00:55 but that's also possible 22:01:09 -!- asdfhjkl [~bob@i5E879AE1.versanet.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 22:01:44 lcc [~user@unaffiliated/lcc] has joined #scheme 22:02:28 in "but that's never a problem ...", were you talking about the binding of `makesomething' in `/((#zs# z*) (#ks# k*) {#result# makesomething(zs,ks)})*/' ? 22:03:06 no I meant the /(z*) (k*) {makesomething(zs,ks)}/{zs ks result} 22:03:15 for the zs and ks 22:03:16 -!- ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:03:28 makesomething is externally bound in any case 22:03:46 ok, you mean when the identifiers are *used* externally to the pattern 22:03:59 no 22:04:08 then i'm confused 22:04:16 the binding is done by the {zs ks result} pattern which is outside of the regex 22:04:39 (matching the sequence of fields within the regex) 22:05:12 ah, right, you mean the "cyclic" bindings there 22:05:36 I suppose they could be 22:05:57 well, they're not actually cyclic, but at a zeroth approximation, they are 22:06:21 (similarly to `let (a,b) = (2,a*a) in b' in Haskell) 22:07:16 ColonelJ : ok, so i understand that comment now 22:07:45 (but this separates the bound identifier from the sub-pattern which generates a value for it, which i think is bad for larger patterns) 22:07:53 yep 22:08:47 cf. `((lambda (a b c d) ...) (foo) (bar) (baz) (quux))' vs. `(let ((a (foo)) (b (bar)) (c (baz)) (d (quux))) ...)' in Scheme 22:08:49 single value within and list outside of * is probably the most simple solution for internal identifiers 22:09:12 ok 22:09:20 not sure how bad of problem that really is 22:09:28 but there's obviously a maintenance issue 22:10:58 instinctively identifiers inside does indeed seem better 22:12:09 -!- erjiang [~erjiang@2001:18e8:2:10f4:7a2b:cbff:fea3:da09] has quit [Quit: ttfn] 22:17:57 -!- albacker [~eni@unaffiliated/enyx] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 22:28:20 soveran_ [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has joined #scheme 22:28:20 -!- soveran [~soveran@186.19.214.247] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:39:05 ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has joined #scheme 22:43:58 anyway thanks a lot to think about there, I'll try and work it in ;) 22:44:16 \quit night 22:44:22 -!- ColonelJ [~shardfire@pdpc/supporter/student/colonelj] has quit [Quit: night] 22:57:16 -!- soveran_ is now known as soveran 23:00:55 what's wrong with (cond ((#t) const)) ? i'm getting a 'call of nonprocedure 10' (the number represented by const) 23:01:32 #t is not a procedure you cannot call it. 23:02:06 There's a bug in your implementation reporting the wrong nonprocedure object. 23:02:09 i meant something that gives #t back 23:02:20 i tried to extract the meaningful part of my code 23:02:29 #t 23:02:42 (cond 23:02:43 ((null? lst) fitcount) 23:02:43 ((< fitcount (cdar lst)) => (loop (cdr lst) (cdar lst))) 23:02:43 (else (loop (cdr lst) fitcount))))) 23:02:54 -!- copumpkin is now known as BTC_Teddybear 23:03:20 -!- BTC_Teddybear is now known as copumpkin 23:03:28 that is inside the loop, which is initialized with a possibly empty list at lst (the first parameter), and a number at fitcount 23:03:37 (ie, the loop keyword is from a named let) 23:03:46 bfgun: you didn't read r5rs! 23:03:50 Go read r5rs. 23:03:53 "If the selected uses the => alternate form, then the is evaluated. Its value must be a procedure that accepts one argument; this procedure is then called on the value of the and the value(s) returned by this procedure is(are) returned by the cond expression. " 23:04:05 You rloop doesn't return a procedure. 23:04:10 -!- ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 23:04:11 ohh i see! 23:05:26 -!- about-parallel [0e8853e9@gateway/web/freenode/ip.14.136.83.233] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 23:06:17 -!- dzhus [~sphinx@176.14.94.92] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:06:48 airolson [~airolson@CPE00222d55a738-CM00222d55a735.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 23:06:53 ok, i still have a problem 23:07:21 it is not related, let me take a sec to solvei t 23:11:12 jwd [~jwd@cable-118-42.sssnet.com] has joined #scheme 23:18:48 -!- _schulte_ [~eschulte@c-174-56-50-60.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 23:21:16 pjb: R7RS makes => even more supercharged! IIRC, it provides SRFI 61 functionality, and it provides => for case as well. 23:21:20 *cky* goes and rereads the draft. 23:22:14 -!- keenbug [~daniel@p4FE3993B.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 23:22:52 Oh, I'm wrong. SRFI 61 is not incorporated into R7RS (as of draft 6). 23:23:37 But it does provide => for case, which is awesome. 23:27:43 arcfide [~arcfide@c-98-223-204-153.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:27:45 ssbr_ [~ssbr@python/site-packages/ssbr] has joined #scheme 23:34:21 adu [~ajr@64.134.96.202] has joined #scheme 23:35:02 do any schemes implement call/cc with POSIX setcontext/getcontext? 23:36:03 dous [~dous@unaffiliated/dous] has joined #scheme 23:40:29 -!- GoKhlaYeh [~GoKhlaYeh@235.31.80.79.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 23:47:41 -!- airolson [~airolson@CPE00222d55a738-CM00222d55a735.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [] 23:49:40 -!- kk` [~kk@unaffiliated/kk/x-5380134] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.7] 23:51:04 -!- masm [~masm@bl18-36-133.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 23:51:07 rageous [~Adium@65-128-193-252.mpls.qwest.net] has joined #scheme 23:55:28 -!- tuubow_ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 23:55:32 tuubow__ [~adityavit@c-24-0-148-151.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:58:18 _schulte_ [~eschulte@c-174-56-50-60.hsd1.nm.comcast.net] has joined #scheme