00:09:48 cinolt [473a1288@gateway/web/freenode/ip.71.58.18.136] has joined #scheme 00:10:38 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:10:55 Sup dawgs. I'm trying to learn lisp (Scheme specifically) and I'm reading the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. One of the exercises is "Exercise 1.3. Define a procedure that takes three numbers as arguments and returns the sum of the squares of the two larger numbers.". And this is my attempt: http://paste.lisp.org/display/133862 Can somebody give some advice as to how I can improve it? As it is, it doesn't seem very 00:11:02 Have to do a lot of work in order to make it work for 4, 5, or n numbers. 00:11:30 cinolt: without even looking at it, I'll criticize you for not having written unit tests. 00:11:57 I'm still just beginning. What's a unit test? 00:12:16 it's a bit of code that exercises the code you wrote, and feeds it some inputs, and checks the output for correctness. 00:12:34 -!- amado [~amado@187.209.56.25] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:12:35 assuming your code actually works, I'd say it's not too bad. 00:13:04 It still has the problem that it seems very "brute forcey". I had to enumerate all the possibilities, which would grow with the number of arguments if I ever needed to increase it. 00:13:11 I was just wondering if there was a more elegant way to do it. 00:13:46 don't knock brute force -- sometimes it's just the thing :) 00:14:11 -!- peterhil [~peterhil@91-157-48-10.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 00:14:12 well, there isn't, that sticks with the constraints of your problem; but I admire your desire to clean it up. 00:14:29 jao [~jao@232.Red-83-32-71.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 00:14:32 -!- jao [~jao@232.Red-83-32-71.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Changing host] 00:14:32 jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has joined #scheme 00:14:35 To me the only sensible way is to write a "partial sort" function, which, when given a list of numbers, and another number N, returns the N largest numbers. 00:14:56 (An easy way to do that would be to just sort the damned list and throw out all but the first N, but that's a tad inefficient if N is small) 00:15:12 offby1, how about a function which iterates over a list and returns the maximum value from it? 00:15:22 gnomon: sure, then you've written a selection sort. 00:15:25 I guess that'd be OK 00:15:49 once you find the maximum value, though, you'll want to _delete_ that value, then run it function again on the smaller list, etc. 00:15:58 kinda klunky. 00:16:04 doable but unlovely 00:16:16 *gnomon* stifles the obvious joke 00:16:23 no, please! 00:16:39 Ok, thanks all for your help 00:16:43 -!- cinolt [473a1288@gateway/web/freenode/ip.71.58.18.136] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 00:16:49 Wait, don't go! 00:16:52 wait, you're leading without hearing gnomon's joke! 00:16:53 Yeesh 00:16:55 *leaving 00:16:59 New to Scheme _and_ to IRC, apparently. 00:17:15 like I say -- I admire his/her/it aesthetic sense. 00:17:32 Not too many freshmen have the taste to see the klunkiness in that solution. 00:19:29 Ah, he's not a freshman. He has implemented a simple window manager atop xcb, among other things. 00:19:46 He's also not new to IRC. 00:23:30 amado [~amado@187.209.56.19] has joined #scheme 00:23:31 destroyer of dreams 00:23:55 anyway, I do still want to hear your joke, "obvious" though it may be (if it were _that_ obvious, I'd already know what it is, but I don't.) 00:24:01 Funy, that's what Mum called me. 00:24:17 -1s/ny/nny/ 00:25:52 Oh, it was a boring joke anyways. "Doable but unlovely" leads naturally to "if they can't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy". 00:26:07 I'm off my game today, obviously. 00:26:29 -!- hiroaki [~hiroaki@p4FCC492D.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 00:26:50 Ah, a more UK-ish meaning of "do", not immediately apparent to this Murriken 00:27:25 hiroaki [~hiroaki@p4FCC492D.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 00:27:28 That meaning has a UK tinge to it? Really? Huh! 00:28:03 -!- amado [~amado@187.209.56.19] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:28:08 To me, it does. 00:28:41 /me, like gnomon is on Rogers at the moment 00:28:44 figures 00:28:51 pretend that expanded properly 00:29:11 Duly noted. In my experience, I've seen that sense crop up in verbiage used by folks from several Canuckistanian provinces, from the UK, from several parts of the US, and Oz, obviously. 00:29:32 Waitaminute, why are you on Rogers? (also: my deep sympathies) 00:31:22 'Cuz I'm on a brief vacation to Victoria BC. 00:32:02 Ah, welcome! I hope that end of the land mass is treating you well. 00:32:36 I want to celebrate: after 15 years of occasionally visiting Canada, I've finally found a place that'll sell me a reasonably-priced SIM card which I can stick in my téléphone intelligent and have data! Whee. 00:32:46 (That place, ironically, is the Rogers store at the local mall) 00:34:20 *gnomon* spits ritualistically, as all folks are required to do when the conversation turns to Rogers 00:36:35 Cable and cellphone companies may not be _technically_ monopolies, but they sure act like them 00:36:59 In the US, they used to say that Ma Bell's motto was: "We don't care. We don't have to." 00:38:10 the interweb says that joke originated with Lily Tomlin, God bless her 00:38:18 In Canadia, the CRTC has spent the last five or so years enthusiastically entrenching the Bell/Rogers duopoly. 00:39:11 I can sorta see why cable companies tend toward monopoly -- it'd be dumb having eight different cables strung along every street -- but with cell phones it's not clear. 00:39:47 Because handwave handwave spectrum licensing? 00:41:11 amado [~amado@209.99.3.103] has joined #scheme 00:41:45 mark_weaver [~user@ip68-9-118-38.ri.ri.cox.net] has joined #scheme 00:42:58 Too bad cinolt left so quickly. I could have told him that his code fails unless all three arguments are distinct. 00:44:36 Too bad he didn't heed my nagging to write unit tests 00:45:19 also, (and (> a b) (> b c)) could have been written as (> a b c) 00:45:31 though it should have been (>= a b c) 00:47:58 pyro-__ [~pyro@zhaozhou.dcollins.info] has joined #scheme 00:48:20 -!- SeySayux [SeySayux@libsylph/developer/seysayux] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 00:49:25 -!- pyro-_ [~pyro@zhaozhou.dcollins.info] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 00:49:25 -!- tessier [~treed@kernel-panic/copilotco] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 00:49:25 -!- pothos [~pothos@114-25-206-217.dynamic.hinet.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:49:40 pothos [~pothos@114-25-206-217.dynamic.hinet.net] has joined #scheme 00:51:11 tessier [~treed@216.105.40.125] has joined #scheme 00:51:11 -!- tessier [~treed@216.105.40.125] has quit [Changing host] 00:51:11 tessier [~treed@kernel-panic/copilotco] has joined #scheme 00:51:15 SeySayux [SeySayux@libsylph/developer/seysayux] has joined #scheme 00:56:39 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@racket/jonrafkind] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 01:05:02 -!- dnolen [~user@cpe-74-64-61-245.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 01:21:22 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:23:55 -!- mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 01:24:50 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 01:24:58 -!- masm [~masm@bl17-195-130.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 01:42:05 peterhil [~peterhil@91-157-48-10.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #scheme 01:42:34 b4283 [~b4283@60-249-196-111.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #scheme 02:18:02 -!- tali713 [~user@c-76-17-236-129.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 02:20:20 jcowan [~John@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has joined #scheme 02:24:37 Onionnion|Eee [~ryan@adsl-68-254-173-118.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net] has joined #scheme 02:24:46 hoi 02:27:54 HARK 02:36:06 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@77.221.27.145] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 02:54:02 -!- kvda [~kvda@ppp121-44-56-186.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net] has quit [Quit: -___-] 03:05:03 Hi jcowan. Thanks very much for your proposed compromise. I appreciate your effort. I apologize for having lost my temper a few times. 03:05:36 I'm not proud of how I've conducted myself on the list. 03:07:48 It's the desperation speaking. I feel utterly powerless. 03:13:53 I understand. 03:16:46 mark_weaver: Be very careful what you wish for - if we actually do re-vote on this issue, then it's most likely votes will be unchanged. However, the next most probable possibility is we have a tie, in which case our process requires reverting to the R5RS definition. 03:16:57 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 03:18:01 I'd gladly take my chances on that. You were the only one who voted for R5RS, and the author of the "same bits" proposal wanted to leave the non-IEEE case unspecified. 03:18:42 I really don't want 0.0 and -0.0 to be eqv? 03:18:43 Only 6/10 voted for same bits anyway. Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement. 03:19:24 mark_weaver: You don't understand - if it changes to 5/10 for same bits, then we've failed to obtain a majority. We then _automatically_ revert to R5RS regardless of who voted for it. 03:19:39 Better than Barack Obama got. 03:20:04 foof: I understood that, and I'd still gladly take my chances. 03:21:06 Though I suppose it depends on what options to choose to place on the ballot. 03:22:21 This option was available before, and removed outright because it was so horribly broken, and no one wanted it restored. 03:22:36 what option was available? 03:23:08 Leaving eqv? unspecified in the non-IEEE case. 03:23:19 I had forgotten that. 03:23:33 mark_weaver: There is _nothing_ new here. We've discussed everything you said at length many times. 03:23:52 My proposed language is new. 03:24:58 Language is irrelevant, that's a minor editorial change and we don't even need to vote for it. 03:25:36 I'm speaking of my proposed definition of eqv? for inexact reals. 03:25:43 The trouble is really the presence of both -0.0 and multiple formats of NaN. 03:25:58 also precisions and exponent ranges. 03:26:09 That's our R6RS option - I had already pointed out that R6RS was broken and said we would fix the wording. That's also nothing new. 03:26:14 It's really important to get -0.0 and +0.0 to be not-eqv, but people mostly concentrated on how the different representations of NaN are going to work. 03:26:49 Yes, that's a good point: if you have multiple precisions and aren't IEEE, you wind up not being able to discriminate them. 03:26:53 So we have no new proposals, no new arguments, and no real basis for re-vote. 03:27:14 mark_weaver: R7RS-large will have a memoization library, so some of this non-portable *@#$ can be buried in that. 03:28:00 foof: I have a hard time understanding how you can call my proposed definition "not new". 03:28:30 Because it isn't - it's just R6RS with fixed wording, which is what we voted on (with the wording as yet unwritten). 03:28:30 vaguely saying that you'll fix the R6RS wording is not the same thing. no one could be sure what that would become, or even if it was easible. 03:28:40 *feasible 03:28:46 It's not rocket science. 03:29:39 Eh, what about the infinite-display issue? 03:29:52 foof, I believe that you have become hardened in your opposition to me. 03:30:58 It would set a bad precident if argument ad nauseum could influence us. 03:31:00 and that this hardened opposition has gone beyond any rational basis. I'll accept responsibility for that, given that I lost my temper a few times. 03:31:22 mark_weaver: That's more or less what I've been thinking about your hardened opposition, too. 03:32:15 mark_weaver: I also really don't understand your latest comments - you're saying at the same time eqv? is of utmost importance and that it's meaningless. It seems you just want to disagree with me. 03:32:16 I've given in on several issues I care about. I stopped arguing about the division operators, and about 'expt'. 03:32:32 when did I say it was meaningless? 03:33:03 I need to be able to do memoization. eqv? has always been the tool for that job. it's as simple as that. 03:33:22 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has quit [Quit: MichaelRaskin] 03:33:39 BTW, I think you're program is likely flawed if you want to memoize inexacts. You'll more than likely just waste time and space. 03:33:48 I've asked many times for an answer to the question "how do I do memoization?", and I've never received an answer that works. 03:33:55 (But that's a design issue.) 03:35:00 (define (my-eqv? a b) (and (eqv? a b) (if (eqv? a -0.0) (eqv? (/ a) (/ b))))) 03:35:47 that only solves the problem for signed zeroes. It does not solve the problem for precisions and exponent ranges. 03:39:11 jcowan: I forget, do any implementations currently support multiple precisions? 03:39:53 foof: if you care only about implementations that currently exist, then why do you care about preserving the non-IEEE clauses? 03:40:40 Because I do want to implement some alterate inexact ideas. Unlike MPFR these have nothing to do with IEEE. 03:40:56 IIRC there are two implementations that support both 64-bit and 32-bit floats. 03:41:04 Racket is definitely one of them. 03:41:21 Ah, right. 03:42:22 then: (define (my-eqv? a b) (and (eqv? a b) (if (inexact? a) (eqv? (/ a) (/ b))))) 03:42:45 My objection to R5RS is that it treats 0.0 and -0.0 as eqv?, which means in principle that if you put an -0.0 into a container (pair, vector, whatever), you potentially get back an 0.0. 03:42:47 that still doesn't compare precisions or exponent ranges. 03:42:57 yes it does 03:43:14 I fail to see how. 03:43:20 How does it distinction 0.0 and 0.0f0? 03:43:28 s/ction/guish 03:44:37 Ah, I don't have my heart in this - I think it's broken to treat those as not eqv?. 03:44:58 why do you need to use eqv? for that? 03:45:04 why not use '='? 03:45:06 *jcowan* is confused. 03:45:28 why do you need two primitives to do your job, leaving me none to do mine? 03:45:29 Anyway, people can define their own equivalence functions if they are clever (and possibly system-dependent) about it. 03:45:42 What they can't do is change the semantics of locations, which depends on *the* definition of eqv?. 03:46:45 the problem is, there's no way to portably define an "operational equivalence" predicate that anticipates every possible numeric representation. 03:47:25 and even if you limit yourself only to traditional flonums, it would be prohibitively expensive to compare the precisions and exponent ranges.. 03:49:53 By your thinking, is it not just as broken to treat 0 and 0.0 as not eqv? and yet the giants whose shoulders we stand upon chose to make them not 'eqv?'. Why do you think they did that? 03:50:04 The thing is, you simply aren't going to get enough guarantees out of R7RS-small alone to allow you to write portable inexact-number software anyway. Beginning with there being no guarantee there *are* any inexact numbers. 03:50:37 jcowan, you're mining for adamantium there. 03:50:53 (right crowd for a Dwarf Fortress reference? Wrong crowd?) 03:51:47 Wrong addressee, anyway. I vaguely know what DF is, but not the implication of your metaphor. 03:52:09 Well, for future reference, http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Raw_adamantine#Veins_and_Mining 03:52:12 http://tinyurl.com/akz8ktk 03:53:05 I'm not thinking about R7RS-small as much as about all the stuff that will be built upon that foundation. 03:53:47 indeed, I will need optimized equal?-based hash tables from R7RS-large to efficiently implement memoization anyway. 03:54:27 anyway, I don't mind saying "requires inexacts" as much as I mind saying "requires that you violate the R7RS-small in these precise ways..." 03:54:37 How will that work? I thought the whole point was that equal? (which is the same as eqv? for atoms) isn't fine enough for righteous memoization. 03:55:17 in practice, a memoizer uses the entire argument list as a key in an equal?-based hash table. 03:55:41 though you could use 'eqv?' for a single-argument function. 03:59:32 Ah, of course. I was thinking of hashing each argument and then xoring the hashes, but I suppose that's the same thing in practice. 03:59:54 While we are talking about memoization, what about multiple values? 04:00:07 gnomon: That didn't help much. 04:00:34 not a problem. the value in the hash table is the list of values. I've implemented that exact functionality as a general higher-order memoizer. 04:01:55 and like me, anyone who has already done that job portably in the past will have used eqv? or equal?, because those are the only available tools for that job. 04:02:53 Sure, that'll work. I was hoping for a solution that didn't require consing in the multiple-value case. 04:03:04 the RRRS and R3RS definitions made the principle behind 'eqv?' very clear. 04:03:12 jcowan, I just meant that if you dig too far into that topic, Balrogs come spilling out. 04:03:40 Ahh. 04:04:26 Back in 1975, I was playing in a D&D classic + Greyhawk dungeon, and somewhere on the first level there was a phone on the wall. 04:04:44 If you picked it up, a voice said "Balrog Central: where do you want the balrogs sent?" 04:04:50 We panicked and RAN. 04:05:21 *gnomon* guffaws riotously 04:07:57 mark_weaver: Is it definitely appropriate to guarantee that if you put a 32-bit float into a box, what comes out of the box is still a 32-bit float? That doesn't seem to make sense in systems where all computation is done in 64-bit. 04:10:20 spiderweb [~lcc@unaffiliated/lcc] has joined #scheme 04:11:25 jcowan: I'm not sure I have an answer to that question. but if you have 2048-bit floats, then it becomes clear that you don't always want to upgrade everything to the highest-available precision. 04:11:55 Right, and Scheme doesn't require that unless you are undergoing a forced conversion from an exact value. 04:11:56 indeed, MPFR allows you to use precision limited only by available memory. 04:13:31 The reason precision and exponent range is important to compare for memoization purposes is that (sqrt 2.0) will have a very different answer depending on what precision you ask for, which by the usual convention is the precision of that 2.0 argument. 04:14:22 exponent range matters because (square 1e300) will be infinity for 64-bit floats, but it will be 1e600 if the exponent range allows it. 04:15:42 so the results of inexact functions depends not only on the numeric values of the inputs, but also on the exactness, precision, and exponent range. 04:15:50 of the inputs. 04:56:29 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 04:57:45 Ivo [~ivo@unaffiliated/ivoz] has joined #scheme 05:02:50 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 05:09:11 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 05:30:00 cdidd [~cdidd@176.14.146.254] has joined #scheme 05:30:40 -!- spiderweb [~lcc@unaffiliated/lcc] has quit [Quit: leaving] 05:31:14 bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 05:31:18 spiderweb [~user@unaffiliated/lcc] has joined #scheme 05:39:37 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-174-89.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 05:41:59 -!- jcowan [~John@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:45:02 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 05:45:32 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 05:55:54 -!- dropster [~Kim@port284.ds1-oebr.adsl.cybercity.dk] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:11:20 -!- Onionnion|Eee [~ryan@adsl-68-254-173-118.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:15:09 -!- youlysses is now known as youlysses_ZZZzzz 06:18:38 fantazo [~fantazo@91-119-196-139.dynamic.xdsl-line.inode.at] has joined #scheme 06:22:43 -!- youlysses_ZZZzzz [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:28:11 -!- cky [~cky@fsf/member/cky] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 06:30:19 mark_weaver: We've already clarified that the equivalence applies to IEEE-based systems. You are now _required_ to do what you think is the right thing for MPFR. 06:31:19 yes, but it doesn't help for inexact representations that are not based on IEEE. 06:33:15 which would, for example, include representations of the style you prefer (e.g. no signed zeroes) but with multiple available precisions. 06:33:44 in such cases, the precision must be taken into account. 06:34:54 leaving the non-IEEE case unspecified is not my first choice, but in practice it would be good enough, because implementors would naturally extrapolate the IEEE "same bits" idea. 06:35:40 the current language leads them to do the wrong thing, which is worse than saying nothing. 06:37:11 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 06:37:20 cky [~cky@fsf/member/cky] has joined #scheme 06:37:40 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 06:37:49 Yes, so I'm unhappy, but everything works for you. This is fine because I was unhappy to begin with. 06:38:54 what would it take to make you happy? 06:39:36 Anything other than what we have? Although the only thing worse than what we have would be making non-IEEE numbers unspecified. 06:40:09 everything does not work for me, because even with jcowan's revisions, the R7RS _requires_ that memoization be broken for non-IEEE representations. 06:40:39 Which does not include MPFR or any existing implementations. 06:41:06 I think your unhappiness derives from your to use 'eqv?' for jobs that it was not intended for, and where '=' is the right tool. 06:41:18 *your desire to use... 06:41:47 You have no idea what I want - you keep talking about my use cases and I've never given any. 06:42:11 you talk about wanting (eqv? 1.0 1.0) => #true and things like that. 06:42:50 That was a shorthand for (let ((x 1.0)) (eqv? x x)). 06:43:07 If you want to break that you've broken memoization. 06:43:50 I don't want to break that, and my preferred proposal would not break that, but it's not crucial. it wouldn't cause memoization to return the wrong answers. it would only cause wasted work. 06:44:50 it is true that the jcowan's proposed compromise would not guarantee that, but in practice it's highly likely that implementations would understand how to properly extrapolate the IEEE rule to other representations. 06:46:23 This is where I don't understand you at all. If things go your way, you assume implementations will do what you want. If things don't go your way, you assume implementations will do horrible things and sneak into your house and steal your underpants. 06:46:59 The new text reads "both inexact real numbers implemented in the style of the IEEE 754-2008 standard" so MPFR is covered. 06:47:04 The current wording *requires* that non-IEEE inexacts act in a way that will break memoization. 06:47:20 mark_weaver: stop 06:47:22 relax 06:47:40 Several people have told you it doesn't require any such thing. You're the only person reiterating this fallacy. 06:47:49 And we changed the wording to make it more clear. 06:47:52 who told me? 06:47:55 There is no longer any issue. 06:48:05 John and me and Per at least. 06:48:36 Per never said that, and I don't believe John did either. 06:48:58 Per agreed with me that the current definition is arguably wrong for non-IEEE numbers. 06:49:03 He gave a +1 to my explanation. You're not even paying attention to what we say. 06:49:13 You're confused and wasting our time. 06:51:06 Wow. 06:51:49 I'm going to have trouble continuing this conversation without insulting you (as you've just done to me), so I better go cool off. 06:51:54 -!- mark_weaver [~user@ip68-9-118-38.ri.ri.cox.net] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 07:00:38 hiroaki_ [~hiroaki@p5B04BD85.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 07:02:08 mark_weaver [~user@ip68-9-118-38.ri.ri.cox.net] has joined #scheme 07:03:28 foof: You wrote "the notion that = and eqv? disagree is anathema to me." Do you still feel that way? Would you prefer (eqv? 0 0.0) => #true ? 07:03:47 -!- hiroaki [~hiroaki@p4FCC492D.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 07:04:21 :) 07:04:31 It doesn't matter what I think. 07:04:47 We've clarified the text. There's no more issue. 07:05:25 I will now explain in simple language how the current text will cause memoized procedures to sometimes return the wrong answers. 07:06:30 Suppose you implement arbitrary-precision bigfloats that do not have signed zeroes or infinities, as is your preference. 07:07:16 Now consider a memoized 'sqrt' procedure that computes a result in the same precision as its argument, using this non-IEEE number system. 07:07:39 This is still in the style of IEEE. 07:07:41 First you compute (sqrt 2.0) where 2.0 has a precision of 64-bits. 07:08:50 It still has all the fields used in the specification of the IEEE behavior. 07:09:01 I don't think so, but if you insist this is IEEE, let's consider a continued-fraction representation, where the "precision" is specified as the number of terms in the continued fraction. 07:09:44 any irrational number has an infinite number of terms as a continued fraction, so sqrt(2) has an infinite number of terms. 07:09:51 Then two different fractions won't be =. 07:10:24 true, but two different representations of the integer 2, but with different "precisions", will be = 07:10:34 but they should not be 'eqv?' 07:10:46 if you make them eqv?, then you break memoization. 07:11:05 Why? Presumably you're normalizing so this situation never happens, but even if not they should produce the same results. 07:11:09 because (sqrt 2.0) will, by the usual convention, return an answer in the same precision as its argument. 07:11:33 Who says? This is all a hypothetical representation well outside the scope of R7RS. 07:12:13 so (sqrt x), where 'x' is 2.0 and has a precision of 10 terms, will return a different answer than (sqrt x), where 'x' is 2.0 but has a precision of 20 terms. 07:12:51 if you think that all non-IEEE representations are outside of the scope of R7RS, then why do you want to include clauses that talk about them? 07:12:59 We really can't consider this in a standards discussion because too much is unknown. Neither the representation nor the arithmetic has even been prototyped in an implementation. 07:13:45 continued-fraction arithmetic has been quite well studied. 07:13:55 there are several libraries that implement them. 07:14:17 I'm personally interested in hugenums and their reciprocals. Numbers represented using Conway arrow notation. These will be normalized and never overlap with the flonum range. 07:14:25 The only reasonable definition of eqv? for them is =. 07:15:49 Yes, continued-fractions and Taylor series and many other representations are well studied, but not as primitive Scheme numbers. 07:15:52 Perhaps that's true for your chosen representation, but it is certainly not true for all representations. 07:16:00 A more mundane example is quaternions. 07:17:32 So this is all a bunch of unknowns. However, leaving them completely unspecified is too loose, and breaks R5RS and earlier assumptions. It's better to use = than nothing at all. 07:17:46 reals vs complex vs quaternions is an orthogonal issue to the underlying inexact representation. quaternions are typically represented as 4 real numbers. the representation of those real numbers is a separate question. 07:18:30 Yes, but this isn't covered by the spec without the = clause. 07:18:31 = is the wrong concept. it is close but subtly wrong. 07:19:04 It's better than nothing. You're already dealing with inexact values, the standard gives no guarantee of precision. 07:21:05 Anyway, for your planned implementation the spec works. For my planned implementation the spec works iff we keep the = clause. For some hypothetical unplanned implementations = may or may not be right, and the implementor may or may not choose to deviate from the spec. 07:21:17 Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. 07:24:05 if you insist on some simple language to specify non-IEEE cases, then at least use a vague description of operational equivalence. The R7RS definition of eqv? already includes this vague clause regarding procedures: [eqv? returns #f if] obj1 and obj2 are procedures that would behave differently (return different values or have different side effects) for some arguments. 07:24:05 07:24:44 Would it really be so terrible to include some slightly vague language for the non-IEEE case? 07:26:28 It's better to vaguely describe the right concept than to clearly describe the wrong concept. 07:26:58 especially for a case that you consider so marginal as to not be worth worrying about. 07:27:00 Because that's a semantic change and would require a third re-vote. 07:27:15 What's so terrible about having another vote? 07:27:15 And then we'd probably end up with R5RS, which would break what is currently working for you. 07:27:26 I doubt it. 07:30:56 Why? We've covered everything before (twice). 07:35:06 mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has joined #scheme 07:39:32 -!- mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 07:42:05 -!- ASau [~user@46.115.66.19] has quit [Quit: I be back.] 07:42:26 -!- mark_weaver [~user@ip68-9-118-38.ri.ri.cox.net] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 07:45:33 ah, i hate it that VALUES are just closures in MIT/GNU Scheme, makes it hard to trace anything that uses not exactly one value :( 07:50:39 -!- mjonsson [~mjonsson@38.109.95.133] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 07:50:56 mjonsson [~mjonsson@38.109.95.133] has joined #scheme 07:54:10 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 08:03:42 -!- bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 08:05:56 civodul [~user@193.50.110.70] has joined #scheme 08:09:31 -!- fantazo [~fantazo@91-119-196-139.dynamic.xdsl-line.inode.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:29:10 hkBst [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 08:29:10 -!- hkBst [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 08:29:10 hkBst [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 08:31:46 Arafangion [~Arafangio@220-244-108-23.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #scheme 08:35:33 walter [~walter@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 08:36:24 -!- walter|r [~walter@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:52:57 -!- snorble_ [~snorble@213.101.209.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 09:07:31 mikecsh [~mikecsh@host213-123-238-172.in-addr.btopenworld.com] has joined #scheme 09:08:38 -!- mikecsh [~mikecsh@host213-123-238-172.in-addr.btopenworld.com] has left #scheme 09:13:51 RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@77.221.27.145] has joined #scheme 09:18:42 -!- hkBst [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 09:27:41 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 09:27:41 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 09:27:41 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 09:39:49 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.208.66.22] has joined #scheme 09:41:29 peterhil` [~peterhil@gatekeeper.brainalliance.com] has joined #scheme 09:45:59 -!- peterhil` [~peterhil@gatekeeper.brainalliance.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 10:08:59 -!- taylanub [tub@p4FD92F9D.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Disconnected by services] 10:09:19 taylanub [tub@p4FD94010.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #scheme 10:51:06 phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 11:02:35 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 11:05:08 -!- b4283 [~b4283@60-249-196-111.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:09:19 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-174-89.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:09:41 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 11:09:41 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 11:09:41 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 11:16:14 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 11:17:20 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 11:17:20 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 11:17:20 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 11:18:45 kunsel [~kunsel@pc22881.wlan.uni-kiel.de] has joined #scheme 11:23:46 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 11:26:38 -!- kunsel [~kunsel@pc22881.wlan.uni-kiel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 11:28:53 kunsel [~kunsel@pc22881.wlan.uni-kiel.de] has joined #scheme 11:30:15 phao_ [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 11:30:27 -!- phao_ [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:31:38 phao_ [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 11:32:13 -!- phao_ [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Client Quit] 11:32:19 -!- phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 11:32:45 phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 11:33:02 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.208.66.22] has quit [Quit: MichaelRaskin] 11:33:57 tali713 [~user@c-24-245-45-112.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 11:42:34 mmc [~michal@sams-office-nat.tomtomgroup.com] has joined #scheme 11:45:18 -!- phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:48:14 masm [~masm@88.214.161.36] has joined #scheme 11:50:56 phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 11:52:19 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 11:52:19 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 11:52:19 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 11:53:11 masm1 [~masm@bl17-195-130.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #scheme 11:53:54 -!- masm [~masm@88.214.161.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:56:27 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-151-0-107-134.vodafone.hu] has joined #scheme 11:56:28 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-151-0-107-134.vodafone.hu] has quit [Changing host] 11:56:28 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 11:57:08 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:57:10 phao_ [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 11:57:24 -!- phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Disconnected by services] 11:57:27 -!- phao_ is now known as phao 12:00:52 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 12:01:51 phao_ [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has joined #scheme 12:01:59 -!- phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Disconnected by services] 12:02:03 -!- phao_ is now known as phao 12:03:38 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-5-63-222-38.vodafone.hu] has joined #scheme 12:03:38 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-5-63-222-38.vodafone.hu] has quit [Changing host] 12:03:38 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 12:20:27 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 12:27:31 -!- kunsel [~kunsel@pc22881.wlan.uni-kiel.de] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/] 12:31:55 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 12:31:55 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 12:31:55 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 12:35:45 -!- phao [~phao@pontenova.dpi.ufv.br] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 12:37:57 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 12:44:09 nowhere_man_ [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-28-231.w83-196.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #scheme 12:46:48 -!- nowhereman [~pierre@AStrasbourg-551-1-142-109.w90-26.abo.wanadoo.fr] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 12:48:57 -!- Arafangion [~Arafangio@220-244-108-23.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:50:15 b4283 [~b4283@1-172-83-160.dynamic.hinet.net] has joined #scheme 13:01:16 -!- ffs [~garland@unaffiliated/ffs] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 13:14:12 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 13:14:12 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 13:14:12 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 13:45:00 jao [~jao@232.Red-83-32-71.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 13:45:04 -!- jao [~jao@232.Red-83-32-71.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Changing host] 13:45:04 jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has joined #scheme 13:47:24 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:47:45 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-130-43-244-205.vodafone.hu] has joined #scheme 13:47:45 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-130-43-244-205.vodafone.hu] has quit [Changing host] 13:47:45 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 14:03:13 tupi [~user@139.82.89.157] has joined #scheme 14:08:26 peterhil` [~peterhil@gatekeeper.brainalliance.com] has joined #scheme 14:20:42 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 14:22:05 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-5-63-246-253.vodafone.hu] has joined #scheme 14:22:05 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@apn-5-63-246-253.vodafone.hu] has quit [Changing host] 14:22:05 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 14:25:30 How about you add an operation to test `are these two values within this number of ulps of one another?'? 14:26:04 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Client Quit] 14:33:11 bjz [~brendanza@CPE-124-185-247-133.lns8.cha.bigpond.net.au] has joined #scheme 14:34:25 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 14:35:09 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 14:36:33 -!- ijp [~user@host86-182-157-241.range86-182.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 14:38:22 ijp [~user@host86-182-157-241.range86-182.btcentralplus.com] has joined #scheme 14:48:30 -!- Nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:49:11 -!- mr_vile [~carnage@9ch.in] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 14:56:03 Nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 14:57:40 -!- mmc [~michal@sams-office-nat.tomtomgroup.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 14:58:31 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:58:57 hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has joined #scheme 14:58:57 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@79.170.210.172] has quit [Changing host] 14:58:57 hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #scheme 15:03:15 -!- elliottcable is now known as pawsgordon 15:08:31 -!- hkBst_ [~marijn@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 15:09:26 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 15:16:52 Onionnion|Eee [~ryan@adsl-68-254-173-118.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net] has joined #scheme 15:22:16 gffa [~unknown@unaffiliated/gffa] has joined #scheme 15:30:11 -!- Gurragchaa [u6439@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dwbmxnzoeypvgdkq] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded] 15:30:28 Gurragchaa [u6439@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wtjyrvytlehdslcx] has joined #scheme 15:39:02 -!- b4283 [~b4283@1-172-83-160.dynamic.hinet.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:44:15 -!- rapacity [~rapacity@unaffiliated/rapacity] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:50:31 mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has joined #scheme 15:51:11 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:51:41 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 15:53:33 pnpuff [~aeiou@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has joined #scheme 15:58:16 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 16:13:10 BossKonaSegwaY1 [~Michael@cpe-75-187-42-68.columbus.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 16:14:07 -!- BossKonaSegwaY [~Michael@cpe-75-187-42-68.columbus.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 16:20:27 -!- pnpuff [~aeiou@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has left #scheme 16:21:50 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:23:41 pnpuff` [~aeiou@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has joined #scheme 16:28:25 -!- pawsgordon is now known as elliottcable 16:31:52 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 16:36:19 fantazo [~fantazo@91-119-196-139.dynamic.xdsl-line.inode.at] has joined #scheme 16:36:23 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 16:40:48 em 16:41:02 er, my bad 16:51:45 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 16:53:47 -!- civodul [~user@193.50.110.70] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 16:55:52 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@77.221.27.145] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:56:14 RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@77.221.27.145] has joined #scheme 16:57:00 -!- pnpuff` [~aeiou@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:01:09 pnpuff [~aeiou@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has joined #scheme 17:02:47 ffs [~garland@unaffiliated/ffs] has joined #scheme 17:15:29 pnpu1f [~aeiou@host42-45-dynamic.37-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #scheme 17:18:35 -!- pnpuff [~aeiou@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 17:19:34 -!- pnpu1f [~aeiou@host42-45-dynamic.37-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Client Quit] 17:22:03 answer_42 [~answer_42@gateway/tor-sasl/answer42/x-66983568] has joined #scheme 17:26:38 bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 17:30:21 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:31:28 Agent-P [Agent-P@s3732.dyn.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de] has joined #scheme 17:31:55 Blkt [~user@82.84.188.5] has joined #scheme 17:33:01 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.225] has joined #scheme 17:39:59 rapacity [~rapacity@unaffiliated/rapacity] has joined #scheme 17:41:24 -!- bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 17:44:02 -!- mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 17:48:33 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 17:49:19 bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 18:19:37 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 18:20:05 snorble_ [~snorble@213.101.209.229] has joined #scheme 18:26:24 -!- tali713 [~user@c-24-245-45-112.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 18:33:11 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme 18:34:58 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-174-89.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 18:37:25 jonrafkind [~jon@racket/jonrafkind] has joined #scheme 18:46:04 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:47:02 ASau [~user@176.4.60.101] has joined #scheme 19:10:46 -!- muep_ [twingo@otitsun.oulu.fi] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 19:13:50 muep [twingo@otitsun.oulu.fi] has joined #scheme 19:23:07 amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD60388.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 19:35:33 -!- Agent-P [Agent-P@s3732.dyn.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:37:18 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@80-95-90-4.pool.digikabel.hu] has joined #scheme 19:37:18 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@80-95-90-4.pool.digikabel.hu] has quit [Changing host] 19:37:18 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 19:43:15 -!- snorble_ [~snorble@213.101.209.229] has left #scheme 19:47:28 -!- tupi [~user@139.82.89.157] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 19:54:52 tupi [~user@139.82.89.157] has joined #scheme 19:55:19 ASau` [~user@46.115.75.160] has joined #scheme 19:55:52 tali713 [~user@c-76-17-236-129.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 19:57:20 -!- ASau [~user@176.4.60.101] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 20:02:11 snorble_ [~snorble@213.101.209.229] has joined #scheme 20:09:10 -!- metasyntax|work [~taylor@proxy5.med-web.com] has quit [Quit: WeeChat [quit]] 20:17:12 mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has joined #scheme 20:17:47 attila_lendvai1 [~attila_le@80-95-90-249.pool.digikabel.hu] has joined #scheme 20:17:49 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Disconnected by services] 20:20:57 -!- attila_lendvai1 [~attila_le@80-95-90-249.pool.digikabel.hu] has quit [Client Quit] 20:22:54 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@80-95-90-249.pool.digikabel.hu] has joined #scheme 20:22:54 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@80-95-90-249.pool.digikabel.hu] has quit [Changing host] 20:22:54 attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has joined #scheme 20:26:18 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 20:56:34 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:57:42 -!- ffs [~garland@unaffiliated/ffs] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 20:58:46 pothos_ [~pothos@1-164-210-188.dynamic.hinet.net] has joined #scheme 20:59:05 -!- pothos [~pothos@114-25-206-217.dynamic.hinet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 20:59:16 -!- pothos_ is now known as pothos 21:04:43 dnolen [~user@cpe-74-64-61-245.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 21:11:58 -!- attila_lendvai [~attila_le@unaffiliated/attila-lendvai/x-3126965] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 21:15:54 -!- tupi [~user@139.82.89.157] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:35:24 -!- Nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 21:37:51 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@racket/jonrafkind] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 21:38:03 -!- joast [~rick@76.178.135.192] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 21:44:39 -!- Ivo [~ivo@unaffiliated/ivoz] has quit [*.net *.split] 21:44:39 -!- cibs [~cibs@219-87-142-18.static.tfn.net.tw] has quit [*.net *.split] 21:47:54 jcowan [~John@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has joined #scheme 21:48:20 youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has joined #scheme 21:48:26 cibs [~cibs@219-87-142-18.static.tfn.net.tw] has joined #scheme 21:48:26 Ivo [~ivo@unaffiliated/ivoz] has joined #scheme 21:50:26 jonrafkind [~jon@racket/jonrafkind] has joined #scheme 21:57:51 grrrrrrr 21:59:21 *ijp* throws some scraps to placate jcowan 22:00:34 Scraps, sir or madam, will not placate me. I am to be placated, sir or madam, only by the rich raw meat of a compelling argument. And not the Monty Python variety, either. 22:01:12 I am no Cerberus to be put off by slushballs, nor am I a mushroom, to be kept in the dark and fed on shit. 22:02:15 grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 22:11:09 -!- ASau` [~user@46.115.75.160] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 22:12:57 -!- jrslepak [~jrslepak@c-71-233-149-127.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: What happened to Systems A through E?] 22:15:51 *gnomon* edges away from jcowan on the bench, there 22:16:16 The Group W bench, I suppose? 22:17:23 (That's where they put you if you're not moral enough to join the Internet Society after creatin' your TCP implementation.) 22:17:53 http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alice_flame.shtml 22:24:35 -!- cdidd [~cdidd@176.14.146.254] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:32:00 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 22:39:27 -!- masm1 [~masm@bl17-195-130.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 22:49:21 -!- peterhil` [~peterhil@gatekeeper.brainalliance.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 22:50:37 -!- answer_42 [~answer_42@gateway/tor-sasl/answer42/x-66983568] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.3.9.1] 22:54:59 -!- youlysses [~user@75-132-17-145.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 23:10:05 -!- Blkt [~user@82.84.188.5] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 23:29:41 -!- mmc [~michal@178-85-56-58.dynamic.upc.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]