00:00:08 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@77.221.25.95] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 00:04:28 jerryzhou [~jerryzhou@58.245.253.218] has joined #scheme 00:13:39 eni [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 00:20:06 yacks [~py@180.151.36.168] has joined #scheme 00:21:44 -!- adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-103.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 00:24:39 -!- miql [~miql@ip68-98-19-126.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:27:00 Nisstyre-laptop [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 00:28:07 -!- yacks [~py@180.151.36.168] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:28:27 yacks [~py@180.151.36.168] has joined #scheme 00:34:59 ijp` [~user@host109-157-170-160.range109-157.btcentralplus.com] has joined #scheme 00:35:44 -!- ijp [~user@host86-141-176-213.range86-141.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Disconnected by services] 00:35:46 -!- ijp` is now known as ijp 00:38:31 -!- eni [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 00:55:27 jcowan [~jcowan@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has joined #scheme 00:57:20 hwaet! 01:00:39 waet's that you say? 01:02:59 Exaectly. 01:03:07 or rather, Exæctly. 01:03:21 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-166-251.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: none] 01:04:01 I still need a proper name for the whætsit, the bundle of procedures having to do with comparing things. 01:04:14 *offby1* shifts uncomfortably 01:04:21 I haven't even looked at one of the drafts :-| 01:05:37 ComparatorsCowan 01:05:39 Hwaet! 01:06:19 *jcowan* is all ears while watching the Warp-Spasm 01:06:32 ...oh, sorry, I just felt like interjecting. 01:06:40 Okay. 01:06:58 Well, I must now conduct a public debate on whether to use the R5 or the R6 semantics of procedure equivalence. 01:07:03 Uhhh...we Scheme-Dena, in yaerdagum... 01:07:14 gaerdagum 01:07:14 Quite. 01:07:21 -!- amca [~amca@CPE-121-208-80-15.cqzr1.cha.bigpond.net.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 01:07:27 geardagum, but who cares? 01:07:45 Oh, right. 01:07:51 It's a long ea, too, isn't it? 01:08:13 Sic, or even Ita. 01:08:38 or as they say in Frankland, "Hoc ille". 01:08:42 adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-103.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 01:12:37 In any case, is there anyone about who really thinks that (eqv? p p) should be allowed to return #f where p is a procedure? 01:12:53 gack! 01:12:54 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-166-251.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 01:12:57 that'd be ... perverse. 01:13:15 And yet R6RS, and the ninth draft of R7RS, permit it. It's ML-envy, really. 01:13:52 The idea is that (eqv? car car) should be rewritable as (eqv? (lambda (x) (%internal-car x)) (lambda (x) (%internal-car x))) 01:14:11 because car shouldn't really have any identity, as the only thing you can do with a procedure is invoke it. 01:14:12 I guess it _really_ wants to return "how the hell should I know, those are PROCEDURES", but that value is outside of its domain, so it settles for #f. 01:14:43 But this takes no account of the possibility that p has state ("objects and their local state, the messages they pass ... in the Lambda Order they are all first class.") 01:14:58 Suppose you write (let ((f (lambda (x) (cond ((pair? x) (foonitz x)) ((vector? x) (barnitz x)))))) (let ((g f) (h f)) (g (cons 0 1)) (h (vector 0 1 2)) (eqv? g h))). 01:17:25 too complex ... can't follow it :-( 01:17:46 f dispatches on the type of its argument; g and h are references to / copies of f; g is used only for pairs, and h only for vectors. 01:17:52 yeah 01:18:05 my gut tells me they should indeed be eqv? 01:18:19 but then I don't even remember the definition of eqv?. I don't think I ever actually use it. 01:18:41 I think I use either equal? or eq?, since (I believe) I know what they do 01:19:13 Generally if you are tempted to use EQ? it is preferable to use EQV? unless you have a very compelling reason not to. 01:20:33 huh 01:20:41 For example, (eq? 1 1) is not guaranteed to return true. 01:20:46 And in some systems it doesn't. 01:20:46 oh sure 01:20:56 I probably use eq? mostly for symbols 01:21:10 EQ? is OK for symbols. But there's no harm in using EQV? for them. 01:21:36 Indeed, eq? and eqv? normally disagree only on bignums, but some systems have an expansive definition of "bignums". 01:21:48 See http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/FixnumInfo 01:21:58 (eq? 1/2 1/2) might return false too, &c. 01:22:06 In particular, SISC, KSi, TinyScheme, Scheme 9, Dream, BDC, UMB apparently have no fixnums. 01:22:19 Quite so. 01:22:28 Rationals are basically an application of bignums. 01:22:41 Those might involve only fixnums. 01:23:04 True, but if so it is an implementation hack. Of course you could say that fixnums are *always* an implementation hack. 01:23:20 the distinction certainly is one 01:23:43 but whether you regard bignums or fixnums as the "hack" is a matter of opinion  01:23:50 In Pure (which is a Scheme for numeric purposes), all rationals are in fact explicit bignum-pairs: the value of 1 % 2 is 1L%2L. 01:24:14 1 being not a fixnum but a 32-bit machine integer. 01:25:00 -!- bjz [~brendanza@125.253.99.68] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:25:53 oh my, Trac reforms on sacrideous 01:26:07 now with 50% more Web 2.0 01:26:36 Riastradh: But suppose f had a mutable variable, what then? R6RS would put you in the position of saying that two objects distinct in the sense of eqv? nonetheless are coupled such that if you mutate one, you mutate the other: spukhafte Fernwirkung, in fact. 01:27:33 dpk: Alas, yes. Boxing the code is particularly ugly when there is a mixture of monowidth and italics on one line. 01:31:12 bjz [~brendanza@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 01:31:37 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-166-251.netcologne.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 01:34:00 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 01:42:19 -!- mmc [~michal@j212142.upc-j.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 01:44:37 miql [~miql@ip68-98-19-126.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 02:04:12 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:16:40 -!- adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-103.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 02:17:14 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 02:46:25 -!- rszeno [~rszeno@86.125.231.3] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 02:49:53 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: none] 02:51:46 -!- Nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:52:24 -!- jerryzhou [~jerryzhou@58.245.253.218] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 02:53:00 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 03:05:38 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: none] 03:06:08 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 03:08:19 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has quit [Client Quit] 03:10:12 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 03:32:34 -!- miql [~miql@ip68-98-19-126.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 03:35:53 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 03:40:08 preflex_ [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 03:40:08 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 03:40:52 -!- preflex_ is now known as preflex 03:42:53 adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-103.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 03:49:04 miql [~miql@ip68-98-19-126.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 03:58:57 -!- bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 04:07:37 -!- joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 04:24:01 -!- miql [~miql@ip68-98-19-126.ph.ph.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:32:06 Blarf. MIT Scheme handles infinities and NaNs badly, because in its default mode arithmetic traps rather than yielding them. Anyone want to fix it? 04:32:29 E.g., (= nan nan) yields true. 04:40:08 es917 [~es@pool-71-106-162-5.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 05:04:29 -!- jrapdx [~jrapdx@c-98-246-145-216.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:04:42 jrapdx [~jrapdx@c-98-246-145-216.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:06:04 tenq [~tenqnewse@ip68-100-228-234.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #scheme 05:27:40 trusktr [~trusktr@c-76-114-26-222.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 05:29:16 agumonkey [~agu@52.158.70.86.rev.sfr.net] has joined #scheme 05:29:42 -!- jcowan [~jcowan@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:30:48 -!- pierpa [~user@host126-61-dynamic.41-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 05:32:38 -!- ehaliewicz [~user@50-0-51-11.dsl.static.sonic.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 05:35:56 bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 05:41:22 ehaliewicz [~user@50-0-51-11.dsl.static.sonic.net] has joined #scheme 05:43:28 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-179-67.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 06:10:03 -!- finnrobi [~robb@notlupus.info] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:03 -!- fadein [~Erik@c-67-161-246-186.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- asumu [~at@racket/asumu] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- embee [~eMBee@foresight/developer/pike/programmer] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- copec [copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- ineiros_ [~itniemin@bayesianconspiracy.org] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- fizzie [fis@unaffiliated/fizzie] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:04 -!- zbigniew [~zb@3e8.org] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:05 -!- fds [~fds@tickle.compsoc.man.ac.uk] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:05 -!- C-Keen [cckeen@pestilenz.org] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:10:40 ineiros [~itniemin@bayesianconspiracy.org] has joined #scheme 06:16:54 fadein [~Erik@c-67-161-246-186.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 copec [copec@166.70.129.209] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 finnrobi [~robb@notlupus.info] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 embee [~eMBee@foresight/developer/pike/programmer] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 fizzie [fis@unaffiliated/fizzie] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 zbigniew [~zb@3e8.org] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 C-Keen [cckeen@pestilenz.org] has joined #scheme 06:21:14 fds [~fds@tickle.compsoc.man.ac.uk] has joined #scheme 06:21:15 -!- zbigniew [~zb@3e8.org] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 06:21:47 zbigniew [~zb@173.230.137.156] has joined #scheme 06:26:05 -!- copec [copec@166.70.129.209] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 06:27:11 cinolt [~cinolt@108-230-150-77.lightspeed.bcvloh.sbcglobal.net] has joined #scheme 06:30:37 pchrist_ [~spirit@li302-95.members.linode.com] has joined #scheme 06:32:46 -!- pchrist_ [~spirit@li302-95.members.linode.com] has quit [Changing host] 06:32:46 pchrist_ [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #scheme 06:32:52 fds_ [~fds@tickle.compsoc.man.ac.uk] has joined #scheme 06:36:23 -!- zbigniew [~zb@173.230.137.156] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:36:23 -!- finnrobi [~robb@notlupus.info] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:36:23 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:36:23 -!- embee [~eMBee@foresight/developer/pike/programmer] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:36:23 -!- fizzie [fis@unaffiliated/fizzie] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:36:23 -!- fds [~fds@tickle.compsoc.man.ac.uk] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:36:23 -!- C-Keen [cckeen@pestilenz.org] has quit [*.net *.split] 06:38:12 -!- pyro- [~pyro@chopstick.dcollins.info] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:39:50 I believe I have devised a syntax/data structure that is more elegant than the "accepted" model, in that 1) improper lists cannot exist in this model; all lists are by default improper lists but without the dot; 2) as such, there is no need for a distinct "empty list" object. I have a procedure in C defined here: http://pastebin.com/YsKsmrVW I'd appreciate any insight on this -- to help make 06:39:50 sense of the code, one should probably start with simple examples and build up from there. 06:40:38 -!- gavilan2 [~Gavilan2@198.144.156.126] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:40:49 gavilan2 [~Gavilan2@198.144.156.126] has joined #scheme 06:45:20 robot-beethoven [~user@c-24-118-142-0.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 06:49:06 -!- adu [~ajr@pool-72-83-26-103.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: adu] 06:49:19 zbigniew [~zb@173.230.137.156] has joined #scheme 06:49:19 finnrobi [~robb@notlupus.info] has joined #scheme 06:49:19 embee [~eMBee@foresight/developer/pike/programmer] has joined #scheme 06:49:19 fizzie [fis@unaffiliated/fizzie] has joined #scheme 06:49:19 C-Keen [cckeen@pestilenz.org] has joined #scheme 06:50:16 -!- trusktr [~trusktr@c-76-114-26-222.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 06:50:32 cdidd [~cdidd@95-28-228-56.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 06:57:51 -!- fds_ is now known as fds 07:26:45 -!- sad0ur [~sad0ur@ip-89-102-144-158.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 07:27:02 sad0ur [~sad0ur@ip-89-102-144-158.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #scheme 07:44:34 introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has joined #scheme 08:01:52 copec [copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has joined #scheme 08:02:08 snowylike [~sn@91-67-171-156-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 08:08:40 -!- jrapdx [~jrapdx@c-98-246-145-216.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 08:09:18 -!- copec [copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 08:19:25 eni [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 08:19:52 copec [copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has joined #scheme 08:21:57 -!- robot-beethoven [~user@c-24-118-142-0.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 08:22:51 -!- kobain [~kobian@unaffiliated/kobain] has quit [Quit: l'unica verità.. è la morte stessa!] 08:44:02 pnpuff_ [~name@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has joined #scheme 08:56:47 mmc [~michal@j212142.upc-j.chello.nl] has joined #scheme 09:10:15 -!- Nisstyre-laptop [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 09:12:56 so according to R6RS (eqv? random random) must return #f. I have never noticed that, and pretty much think it absurd. 09:13:46 -!- ehaliewicz [~user@50-0-51-11.dsl.static.sonic.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:14:37 Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 09:14:47 -!- introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has quit [Quit: introom] 09:15:32 ChouLin [~user@120.196.98.101] has joined #scheme 09:16:13 ycfgc [~rtbkujnfd@188.27.93.134] has joined #scheme 09:21:14 -!- ChouLin [~user@120.196.98.101] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:23:21 ChouLin [~user@120.196.98.101] has joined #scheme 09:26:00 -!- turbofail [~user@107-215-216-65.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:31:54 ChouLin` [~user@120.196.98.101] has joined #scheme 09:33:22 -!- ChouLin [~user@120.196.98.101] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 09:42:16 introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has joined #scheme 09:42:18 -!- introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has quit [Client Quit] 09:46:37 -!- ChouLin` [~user@120.196.98.101] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:08:35 introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has joined #scheme 10:08:49 -!- introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has quit [Client Quit] 10:13:29 przl [~przlrkt@p5B298073.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 10:16:56 -!- ycfgc [~rtbkujnfd@188.27.93.134] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:34:01 alexei___ [~amgarchin@p4FD634EC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 11:13:23 pnpuff [~name@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has joined #scheme 11:15:10 -!- Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 11:16:52 -!- pnpuff_ [~name@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 11:18:39 introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has joined #scheme 11:20:12 -!- introom [~Eddie@101.5.144.224] has quit [Client Quit] 11:24:55 -!- eni [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 11:29:02 RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@77.221.25.95] has joined #scheme 12:00:33 -!- entitativity [~entity@c-50-136-180-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 12:00:56 entitativity [~entity@c-50-136-180-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 12:13:27 rszeno [~rszeno@79.114.92.41] has joined #scheme 12:20:05 -!- tenq [~tenqnewse@ip68-100-228-234.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:30:57 -!- cosmez [~cosmez@200.92.100.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 12:46:29 civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has joined #scheme 12:56:10 koko_zk [~zk@222.71.53.187] has joined #scheme 13:02:03 -!- alexei___ [~amgarchin@p4FD634EC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 13:07:00 Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 13:21:04 jeapostrophe [~jay@69.169.141.110.provo.static.broadweavenetworks.net] has joined #scheme 13:21:04 -!- jeapostrophe [~jay@69.169.141.110.provo.static.broadweavenetworks.net] has quit [Changing host] 13:21:04 jeapostrophe [~jay@racket/jeapostrophe] has joined #scheme 13:23:46 -!- ijp is now known as and 13:24:14 -!- and is now known as ijp 13:25:51 -!- Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 13:30:05 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5B298073.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 13:37:07 -!- wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-131-17.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 13:40:02 -!- civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 14:01:45 Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 14:02:21 przl [~przlrkt@p5B298073.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 14:03:12 SanderM [~quassel@vhe-400104.sshn.net] has joined #scheme 14:12:51 pnpuff_ [~name@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has joined #scheme 14:14:48 -!- Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 14:15:56 -!- pnpuff [~name@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 14:16:01 -!- ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:17:34 ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 14:22:42 alexei___ [~amgarchin@p4FD634EC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 14:32:36 wbooze [~wbooze@xdsl-78-35-172-184.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 14:34:34 SanderM_ [~quassel@131.174.84.217] has joined #scheme 14:34:43 Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 14:35:19 -!- SanderM [~quassel@vhe-400104.sshn.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 14:40:26 -!- bipt [~bpt@cpe-071-070-253-241.nc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 14:40:29 walter|rtn [~walter@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 14:42:41 -!- walter|r [~walter@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:42:41 -!- alexei___ [~amgarchin@p4FD634EC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 15:44:13 -!- pnpuff_ [~name@unaffiliated/pnpuff] has quit [Quit: leaving] 15:48:30 -!- bjz [~brendanza@125.253.99.68] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 15:52:27 alexei___ [~amgarchin@p4FD634EC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 15:52:56 -!- koko_zk [~zk@222.71.53.187] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:06:44 -!- walter|rtn [~walter@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:07:46 walter [~walter@c-24-218-217-69.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 16:10:24 -!- Fare [~fare@79.Red-88-26-248.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 16:11:43 cinolt: Could you just define that inductively or so ? 16:17:27 tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 16:20:44 Fare [~fare@195.Red-88-5-174.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 16:20:46 leppie, why must (eqv? random random) yield #F? 16:21:31 -!- ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 16:24:55 ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 16:26:19 -!- Fare [~fare@195.Red-88-5-174.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 16:28:09 gcartier [~gcartier@modemcable010.136-201-24.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 16:29:07 Riastradh, "... procedure that would behave differently ..." 16:29:13 Riastradh: R6RS says: "Obj1 and obj2 are procedures that return procedures that would behave differently (return different values or have different side effects) for some arguments." Perhaps I misinterpreted it 16:29:56 oops sorry misquote 16:30:11 "Obj1 and obj2 are procedures that would behave differently (return different values or have different side effects) for some arguments." 16:30:53 But it behaves the same way as it itself would, every time you call it. 16:31:15 taylanub: it returns different values 16:31:26 Only at different times. :) 16:32:22 taylanub: that is thue :) Nice way to think of it 16:32:30 s/thue/true 16:32:59 Kind of hard to formulate .. 16:38:55 -!- SanderM_ [~quassel@131.174.84.217] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:40:08 Fare [~fare@195.Red-88-5-174.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 16:44:23 joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@c-98-208-36-36.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 16:46:47 tupi [~user@186.205.69.88] has joined #scheme 16:51:10 -!- ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:52:35 ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 17:04:26 -!- weie [~eie@softbank221078042071.bbtec.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving...] 17:06:43 pierpa [~user@host126-61-dynamic.41-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #scheme 17:06:53 blackwol` [~blackwolf@ool-4574e84c.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #scheme 17:09:58 kobain [~kobian@unaffiliated/kobain] has joined #scheme 17:10:25 -!- blackwolf [~blackwolf@ool-4574e84c.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 17:12:27 -!- Fare [~fare@195.Red-88-5-174.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 17:14:15 spobat [~spobat@p5B09FC19.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 17:14:15 -!- spobat [~spobat@p5B09FC19.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Client Quit] 17:15:52 eni [~eni@gob75-5-82-230-88-217.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 17:32:13 jewel [~jewel@105-237-24-43.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #scheme 17:34:53 -!- snowylike [~sn@91-67-171-156-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de] 17:41:28 weie [~eie@softbank221078042071.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 17:45:06 -!- tupi [~user@186.205.69.88] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:46:52 -!- gcartier [~gcartier@modemcable010.136-201-24.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:54:09 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-179-67.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 18:02:52 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-160-232.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 18:45:31 -!- jeapostrophe [~jay@racket/jeapostrophe] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 18:45:49 taylanub: Inductively you say? Well, it's basically that all lists are implicitly improper lists but without the dot -- that's all there is to it. My model posits that there is no need for the distinction between say, (1 2) (1 . 2); they're both just a group of two atoms. 18:46:20 cinolt: So how do I have an empty list ? 18:46:26 you don't 18:46:42 Frankly, it's quite annoying that the empty list is immutable, so there are possibly better options, but ... 18:46:45 Right, there would be no concept of the empty list. 18:47:01 which is quite a loss 18:47:02 OK, I currently have no idea about the implications of this. 18:47:40 Any list-manipulating operation in Scheme that I could think of could be rewritten in my new model 18:47:51 you lose nice laws 18:47:53 Instead of testing for null?, it tests for atom? 18:48:12 With empty-list based lists, you can still represent an empty list with a mutable object, like (() . #f), how do you do that in your model ? 18:48:49 Well, that simply wouldn't be possible in my model because () is invalid 18:49:11 I mean, that representation doesn't rely on (), it relies on an improper list. 18:49:23 Or rather, it relies on the distinction between proper and improper lists. 18:49:52 Since there is normally no mutable proper list, it uses an improper list to represent it. 18:50:05 Err, since there is normally no mutable empty proper list* 18:50:18 cinolt: for example, now there is no identity for append 18:51:45 I believe append could still be rewritten to accomodate the new model 18:51:48 ehaliewicz [~user@50-0-51-11.dsl.static.sonic.net] has joined #scheme 18:51:54 I never said you couldn't write append 18:51:59 I said it wouldn't have an identity 18:52:07 Right 18:55:36 cinolt, what you mean by () is invalid? 18:56:40 rszeno: They proposed an alternative to the way we represent lists in s-expressions (pairs), where an empty-list/null object doesn't exist, and there is no distinction between proper and improper lists. 18:56:50 Oh wait, cinolt, how do you have a one-element list by the way ? 18:57:08 frankly, I would much rather get rid of improper lists than the empty list 18:57:14 Or does that also not exist in this model ? :\ Elegancy is ultimately very subjective I guess. 18:57:18 taylanub: That wouldn't exist, and the syntax (1) is equivalent to 1 18:58:04 Ehh, I really don't find it elegant to not have a container for less than two elements. 18:58:11 Because to me, when I think of LISP data structures I think of "things", and "groups of things" -- that's it. In that sense, it's troubling to have a distinction between (1) and 1; they're both just one "thing". 18:58:28 I mean, it seems to lift the concept of a container .. it's more like the "multiple-values" concept. 18:59:04 cinolt: I think more experience will ultimately drive you away from that opinion 18:59:51 Yes, this is in the end just preliminary experimenting on my part, but I deviate from the norm to find the reason _for_ the norm. 19:00:19 consistency makes life easier 19:01:35 I've also asked myself why pairs where chosen .. why not have variable-length lists directly as a primitive in s-expressions. 19:02:25 because you can structurally recurse on a recursive data type 19:02:44 vectors require an additional notion of an index 19:02:50 The answer seems to be in part the simplicity of implementing a pair (static allocation), and some nifty things you get also from the conceptual simplicity, like sharing structure between lists. 19:03:20 sorry, the vector thing is a red herring 19:04:56 you are asking why not indirect it through another object, to allow you to e.g. push/pop directly from a list? 19:05:20 but you've basically answered it yourself 19:09:09 -!- Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:12:04 -!- taylanub [tub@p4FD91878.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Disconnected by services] 19:12:30 taylanub [tub@p4FD932C6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 19:14:05 Here is the SICP append in the standard model versus my model -- http://pastebin.com/NrTJ48gY -- though it is evident in this case that the standard model is more elegant 19:16:37 Although, if the car of an atom evaluated to itself and the cdr of an atom evaluated to a "NULL" object, the SICP append could be used unchanged. 19:17:10 But there seems to be a feeling of beating around the bush by doing that. 19:17:47 one special case inevitably breeds others 19:19:39 The difference in simplicity in those implementations is negligible to me, it's just a `foo' vs. a `(cons foo bar)'. 19:20:05 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5B298073.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 19:20:24 cinolt, i'm curios how you campare (((1)) 2) and ((1) 2) ? 19:20:38 -!- yacks [~py@180.151.36.168] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 19:20:43 s/campare/compare/ 19:20:52 In my model, both are equivalent. 19:21:39 but are forbiden? 19:21:41 (1) -> 1, therefore ((1)) -> (1) -> 1, etc. 19:22:11 They aren't necessarily forbidden per se, they're simply equivalent. 19:22:34 Similar to how in Scheme (1 . ()) is equivalent to (1) 19:22:47 and how it look a tree? 19:23:19 cajetanus [~user@2a01:4f8:162:44c1::2] has joined #scheme 19:23:27 juiko [~user@186.34.233.76] has joined #scheme 19:23:34 Are you asking how would a tree be defined in this model? 19:23:39 rszeno: Must have at least two branches at each level. 19:23:40 yes 19:23:51 s/level/node/ 19:24:17 i see 19:24:30 Well wait, I'm not sure if I know what I'm talking about at the moment. 19:24:50 After all S-expressions are also binary trees, where every node *must* have exactly two branches. 19:24:56 binary tree only? 19:25:21 Well in my model you can still have lists, you can still have lists of lists. So any arbitrary structure representable in Scheme can be represented in this model -- any arbitrary tree structure that is. 19:25:37 Using s-expressions, we tend to implement lists as binary trees, and then implement (non-binary) trees as those lists. :D 19:26:42 ((1 2) (3 4) (5 6)) A list of three lists, and so forth. 19:27:31 Although that representation is equivalent to ((1 2) (3 4) 5 6) 19:28:11 but have different length or i'm wrong? 19:28:13 Though it's not a problem for any operation _expecting_ the last list to be "appended" in such a fashion 19:28:43 Here we don't implement lists as binary trees, or rather, we do but we can't have zero- or one-element lists because we don't have a terminator. OK, so back to my original statement: We can implement trees with these atom-or-2+-element objects, but then every node is either an atom or a 2+-branch node. 19:28:45 in first case length is 3 in second 4 as i see it 19:29:25 -!- jewel [~jewel@105-237-24-43.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 19:29:45 Indeed, why are those two the same ? 19:29:53 przl [~przlrkt@p5B298073.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 19:29:53 Yes, that I'd say is a slight problem -- you couldn't rely on Scheme's LENGTH in my model. 19:30:15 Are you sure you didn't confuse something there ? 19:30:36 LENGTH would return 1 for atoms, and the length (2 or up) for lists. 19:31:29 The problem is that we're trying to represent a list of three lists -- therefore LENGTH should intuitively return 3 on such a structure, but as I've demonstrated it would return 4. 19:31:32 can be used another definition if is consistent but i can't imagine another 19:32:27 cinolt: I don't understand why, though; why is ((1 2) (3 4) (5 6)) equivalent to ((1 2) (3 4) 5 6) ? 19:33:05 It makes sense if you draw the tree structure for ((1 2) (3 4)), then think of the whole thing as one list. 19:33:14 -!- juiko [~user@186.34.233.76] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:33:21 (1 2) is a pair, car is 1 cdr is 2 19:33:28 (3 4) is another pair, car is 3 cdr is 4 19:33:33 -!- tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: bye!] 19:33:44 cons them together, then treat the whole thing as one list. 19:35:04 So if anything, LENGTH has a pre-condition that the elements of the list must be consistent -- they must either be all atoms or all lists, for it to return an intuitive answer. 19:35:11 And you have a pair whose car is (1 2) and cdr (3 4), and in the standard model that'd mean the rest is 3 and 4, but not in your model. 19:35:21 the problem here is that you are going to have completely different list structures depending on the order you build them up 19:36:15 cinolt: It could be that I'm very confused myself at the moment, but I think you're confusing your own model. :P 19:37:13 I don't believe I've been inconsistent with my model anywhere so far. 19:38:11 For instance try typing '((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) into a Scheme evaluator. 19:38:18 From my understanding, your model is equivalent to the standard one except that 1) we don't have an empty list object, 2) the last cdr in an impropert list is considered the last element of the list so it's actually a proper list. 19:38:29 3) it lacks useful algebraic laws 19:38:37 cinolt: Yes, but you're confusing your own model with the standard one now. :) 19:39:08 maybe missing neutral element could be problem 19:39:26 the problem with that is not some sort of airy-fairy ivory-tower mathemabullshit, but it infects your code with irregularities, and repeated work 19:39:51 Yes, I can't deny that as I've shown in the APPEND example. 19:39:54 In your model, ((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) is a two-element list whose car and cdr are two-element lists. On the other hand, ((1 2) 3 4) would be, in your model, (((1 . 2) . 3) . 4) 19:40:20 ERR 19:40:29 I don't believe that's correct taylanub 19:41:05 That's incorrect, gimme a sec., my brain doesn't work very well ATM. 19:42:00 civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has joined #scheme 19:42:34 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-160-232.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:42:35 My model -> Scheme -- ((1 2) (3 4)) -> ((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) -- (1 2 3) -> (1 . (2 . 3) -- ((1 2) 3 4) -> ((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) 19:43:02 You're right, and this is confusing as hell. :P 19:45:44 as i see it ((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) can be represented in two ways, different structures, in your implementation 19:46:36 so operations on lists must reflect this and give same result 19:47:44 i'm wrong? 19:48:18 fold, map, append, length, ... 19:48:43 bjz [~brendanza@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 19:49:21 Surely they all need to be implemented differently. 19:49:23 or what you use to do what they do 19:49:34 asumu [~at@2001:470:b:b7:1e6f:65ff:fe23:c3d4] has joined #scheme 19:49:46 -!- asumu [~at@2001:470:b:b7:1e6f:65ff:fe23:c3d4] has quit [Changing host] 19:49:46 asumu [~at@racket/asumu] has joined #scheme 19:51:01 ((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) represents one structure and one structure only; but it's the meaning behind the structure that's ambiguous. It can be a 3-length list of a list, and two atoms, or a 2-length list of two lists. Operations on lists will _assume_ one of those meanings. 19:51:52 you mean standard meaning? is not ambigous because of the dot 19:52:10 and grouping 19:52:52 ((1 . 2) . (3 . 4)) is the Scheme representation; in my model it can be either ((1 2) (3 4)) or ((1 2) 3 4), that's where it's ambiguous 19:53:06 i see 19:53:11 Like we've said earlier LENGTH should return either 2 or 3, depending on what the user intended 19:53:40 So if anything we have to throw LENGTH out; and the user has to define his own LENGTH that accords with this intention. 19:54:34 he can? 19:55:05 if changing type is automatic he have some restriction 19:55:43 for example he can never build something like ((1)) because is automaticaly converted to 1 19:56:12 The point is he would never _want_ to build something like ((1)) 19:56:47 cinolt, not _ever_? You cannot imagine a single circumstance when that would be desirable, so much so that you're willing to forbid the very possibility? 19:57:23 I think it was an assumption .. 19:58:16 The premise is that we're talking about simply things and groups of things -- it makes no sense foundationally for something like ((1)) 19:58:19 probably, sort of he don't need to do it 19:58:35 This is how the user would define LENGTH for a list of atoms, or a list of lists -- http://pastebin.com/X0bVGmhz 20:00:02 Ah, that's in error. length-lists would define the "fringe" length -- it should be using 1 instead of referring to length-atoms. 20:00:17 But, then again there you see the flexibility in defining his own LENGTH. 20:02:20 -!- civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 20:02:51 trusktr [~trusktr@c-76-114-26-222.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 20:05:23 cinolt, I've read your C code and most of the scrollback since you first mentioned it. The point I don't quite yet understand is what problem you're trying to solve. Could you give me a brief high-level reason? 20:05:26 i have no idea, anyway i think that deserve a try if do it 20:07:14 cinolt, also, your source code looks to me like you're building your data structure builder right into your lexer. Is that an interesting design choice, or were you making a point? 20:07:20 cinolt, also: Windows? 20:09:45 gnomon: The problem is that I've found an alternative model that deviates from the standard model, and I've yet to find a reason that eliminates this possibility. The design choice was natural, I wasn't trying to make a point and yes I'm using Windows but I'm using cygwin. 20:10:43 Ah, OK, merely exploring the problem space seeking enlightenment! Excellent, excellent. Enjoy! 20:12:35 -!- ehaliewicz [~user@50-0-51-11.dsl.static.sonic.net] has left #scheme 20:12:52 Though, I might have found that reason now when trying to define foldr with my model -- http://pastebin.com/Xr9iwHir -- it would be very cumbersome to foldr a list with the cons operation to build itself back up; the "initial" argument would have to be a procedure that takes an argument rather than just being an atom. 20:14:55 So far the standard model leads itself to being more elegant when defining list-manipulating procedures, but I still don't see a groundbreaking crystal clear "it simply would be possible to do this" reason. 20:14:58 Yeah, you're pretty much destroying the minimal basis required for the consistent recursive definition, interpretation, and execution of all the other pieces of the standard model. That's not to say your proposal has no value - it obviously has some - only that this value comes at a terrible price. 20:15:25 impossible*, i meant. 20:15:58 The genius of the standard model isn't that it does something the alternative models don't do (blah, blah, something something Turing-complete), only that it does so in a fashion which leads to so very few surprises. 20:16:22 That way you can just figure out a couple of rules, apply them everywhere, and move on to thinking deeper thoughts about other things. 20:19:03 Kind of the same way the lexemes are chosen to avoid surprises, as per the set/lset/gset discussion going on about SRFI-113 right now. 20:22:36 cinolt how is a symbol represented in c in your implementation? 20:23:02 zacts [~user@unaffiliated/zacts] has joined #scheme 20:23:09 i mean what you put in head and tail 20:23:32 The thought initially came to me when I was defining standard forms such as let, lambda (though I'm still choosing id :), if etc. For instance in processing (if #t 1 2), it simply would be more convenient to define it as (if #t 1 . 2), (lambda (n) . (* n n)), (let ((n 1)) . n), assuming of course the lambda and let only evaluate one expression rather than in Scheme where you can have (lambda 20:23:32 () (print-something) (print-something-else)); I'm choosing a purely functional approach. 20:23:46 cinolt, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have a symbol table in your implementation table yet, right? Just working on getting the data model correct at this point? 20:24:16 cinolt, heh, ID indeed - there are a couple of pertinent layers of meaning, there (; 20:24:51 rszeno: a symbol's head points to a wchar_t array, and the tail points to NULL. 20:25:21 gnomon: I have something of a symbol table, if by that you mean something to represent an environment, though nothing quite in stone yet. 20:26:39 you need to reuse symbols sometime, so this means two option copy or use references 20:27:41 allocation/dealocation problems need some solutions 20:28:05 Yes, that's what the free member in core_obj intends to solve. 20:29:09 enviroment is pretty complex 20:29:53 What I'm implementing is pretty much only the first two chapters of SICP -- no mutations of continuations. 20:29:57 i mean when you have something more then few expressions 20:30:07 or continuations.** 20:32:37 -!- acarrico [~acarrico@cable54-3-142.stoweaccess.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 20:32:54 -!- clog [~nef@bespin.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:33:25 -!- pierpa [~user@host126-61-dynamic.41-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 20:38:28 pierpa [~user@host126-61-dynamic.41-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #scheme 20:38:47 Ah, I wasn't thinking with the foldr example -- I'd just use op on it. 20:40:36 ASau` [~user@p5797EE7C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 20:42:13 -!- ASau [~user@p5797E618.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 20:42:51 I actually couldn't. I wasn't thinking this time. 20:43:59 -!- ASau` is now known as ASau 20:44:27 parenjit` [~user@adsl-184-42-4-7.dab.bellsouth.net] has joined #scheme 20:44:32 Unless I just passed NULL for initial -- perhaps there can exist a NULL that's not the empty list object. 20:46:04 -!- parenjitsu [~user@adsl-184-42-4-7.dab.bellsouth.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 20:46:48 *rszeno* this is the best implementation i ever seen http://pastebin.com/i/503.jpg, :) 20:46:59 Yeah. Well in any case it doesn't seem to be a black-and-white issue which "model" is the better one, both has advantages and disadvantages. I'm going to stick with my model and see how it turns out. 20:47:14 rszeno: :) 20:47:43 i tried your previous paste and get this, :) 20:49:51 -!- cdidd [~cdidd@95-28-228-56.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:51:43 cdidd [~cdidd@93-80-5-216.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 21:03:29 -!- weinholt [weinholt@ratio.weinholt.se] has quit [Changing host] 21:03:29 weinholt [weinholt@debian/emeritus/weinholt] has joined #scheme 21:07:49 jerryzhou [~jerryzhou@58.245.253.218] has joined #scheme 21:08:14 -!- jerryzhou [~jerryzhou@58.245.253.218] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:10:34 -!- agumonkey [~agu@52.158.70.86.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 21:21:49 jrajav [~jrajav@71-82-124-223.dhcp.roch.mn.charter.com] has joined #scheme 21:24:38 pt [~pt@84.114.230.154] has joined #scheme 21:32:18 ehaliewicz [~user@50-0-51-11.dsl.static.sonic.net] has joined #scheme 21:37:18 minsa [~minsa@c-24-130-180-195.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 21:38:05 carleastlund [~carleastl@209-6-40-238.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #scheme 21:39:57 acarrico [~acarrico@cable54-3-142.stoweaccess.com] has joined #scheme 21:41:13 -!- Kabaka [kabaka@botters/kabaka] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:42:32 -!- fgudin [fgudin@odin.sdf-eu.org] has quit [Quit: leaving] 21:43:00 Nisstyre-laptop [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 21:47:39 Kabaka [kabaka@botters/kabaka] has joined #scheme 21:53:57 miql [~miql@ip68-98-19-126.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #scheme 21:58:06 -!- offby1 [~user@pdpc/supporter/monthlybyte/offby1] has quit [Quit: gonna try circe] 21:58:07 -!- mmc [~michal@j212142.upc-j.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 21:58:18 jao [~jao@183.Red-79-144-34.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 21:58:22 -!- jao [~jao@183.Red-79-144-34.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Changing host] 21:58:22 jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has joined #scheme 21:59:34 -!- zacts [~user@unaffiliated/zacts] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 22:02:34 civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has joined #scheme 22:04:15 zacts [~zacts@unaffiliated/zacts] has joined #scheme 22:09:05 offby1 [~erich@pdpc/supporter/monthlybyte/offby1] has joined #scheme 22:13:55 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5B298073.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 22:42:11 -!- pt [~pt@84.114.230.154] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:44:52 -!- civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 22:45:31 pumpkin360 [~main@bco200.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl] has joined #scheme 22:50:07 hello. I'm beginning to end reading SICP (I'm in 1/2 of it) but from what I see, it does not cover many topic, probably because it was meant to be an introduction to programming and not book about scheme, also the language grown a little bit since it was written. The question is, will it be enough to read R5RS to get knowlegde about the things not covered in SICP or should I read another big book with lots of exaples and exercises (yay! exerc 22:51:59 -!- eli [~eli@racket/eli] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:52:25 -!- trusktr [~trusktr@c-76-114-26-222.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 22:55:17 eli [~eli@racket/eli] has joined #scheme 23:08:19 -!- bjz [~brendanza@125.253.99.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 23:10:49 pt [~pt@84.114.230.154] has joined #scheme 23:11:55 bjz [~brendanza@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 23:14:59 robot-beethoven [~user@c-24-118-142-0.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:17:08 -!- robot-beethoven [~user@c-24-118-142-0.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:17:23 robot-beethoven [~user@c-24-118-142-0.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:18:47 -!- entitativity [~entity@c-50-136-180-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 23:19:08 jerryzhou [~jerryzhou@58.245.253.218] has joined #scheme 23:22:52 pumpkin360: SICP has a lot more content than it seems to have... 23:25:36 SICP is not about Scheme, it's about programming. If you're already a programmer, read R5RS and the manuals of the specific Scheme implementation you'd like to use. 23:28:54 hi 23:29:11 where can i learn scheme programe course 23:29:19 i only have books 23:29:45 jrapdx [~jrapdx@c-98-246-145-216.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:29:59 with and instructor? 23:32:17 -!- jerryzhou [~jerryzhou@58.245.253.218] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 23:46:38 -!- es917 [~es@pool-71-106-162-5.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: es917] 23:47:52 entitativity [~entity@c-50-136-180-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:54:10 -!- Nisstyre-laptop [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 23:55:01 I recommend spending your time on a healthier pursuit, like quad bike gymnastics 23:55:04 -!- alexei___ [~amgarchin@p4FD634EC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 23:55:31 pumpkin360, SICP has enough in it to teach most programmers more than they will ever use in their careers. If that's not quite enough, your next best bets are the URLs in the /topic of this very channel; library.readscheme.org in particular goes into extreme, specific depth very quickly indeed. 23:57:33 -!- dessos [~dessos@c-174-60-176-249.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has left #scheme