00:11:02 -!- acarrico [~acarrico@hunt-sting-2-234.greenmountainaccess.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:26:29 acarrico [~acarrico@hunt-sting-2-234.greenmountainaccess.net] has joined #scheme 00:26:30 -!- sweet_kid [having@irc.upasna.in] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:26:37 sweet_kid [having@irc.upasna.in] has joined #scheme 00:33:06 -!- Razz [~tim@kompiler.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:33:13 Razz [~tim@kompiler.org] has joined #scheme 00:33:39 -!- sweet_kid [having@irc.upasna.in] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:33:52 Upasana [having@irc.upasna.in] has joined #scheme 00:34:26 -!- dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:40:06 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:40:32 RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has joined #scheme 00:46:52 FunkyDrummer [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has joined #scheme 00:49:29 dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 00:50:23 -!- FunkyDrummer [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:50:35 -!- RageOfThou [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 00:50:46 FunkyDrummer [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has joined #scheme 00:52:54 -!- nmeum [~nmeum@2a00:12c0:1015:123::] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 00:53:02 nmeum [~nmeum@2a00:12c0:1015:123::] has joined #scheme 00:54:07 -!- FunkyDrummer [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:54:54 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@77.221.25.95] has joined #scheme 00:55:03 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@77.221.25.95] has quit [Changing host] 00:55:03 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has joined #scheme 01:13:08 -!- amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD564F4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 01:19:26 zzach: I don't know of such. 01:20:06 zzach: in general, you shouldn't need eval, though if you're talking about XLISP and similar things you have valid reason to want it. 01:21:11 zzach: the problem with what you want is that Scheme is underdeveloped in this respect. 01:21:59 zzach: unless you do your own code walker, you don't have any guarantees. 01:32:25 fridim__ [~fridim@bas2-montreal07-2925317577.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #scheme 01:45:09 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 01:51:01 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 01:53:31 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:54:32 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 02:15:17 strobegen [~Adium@188.168.72.236] has joined #scheme 02:21:54 b4283 [~b4283@60-249-196-111.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #scheme 02:23:09 weie [~weie@softbank221078042071.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 02:34:12 -!- hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 02:38:51 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:40:07 MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@unaffiliated/rageofthou] has joined #scheme 02:51:30 nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 02:51:49 hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has joined #scheme 03:16:55 -!- oleo [~oleo@xdsl-87-79-193-121.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 03:17:15 oleo [~oleo@xdsl-87-79-198-156.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 03:18:36 -!- Kobain [~sambio@unaffiliated/kobain] has quit [] 03:20:47 -!- dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 03:26:21 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 03:42:43 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.161] has quit [Quit: MichaelRaskin] 03:44:29 -!- zzach [~zzach@dslb-092-073-102-009.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 03:45:18 zzach [~zzach@dslb-092-072-007-143.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 04:35:05 -!- fridim__ [~fridim@bas2-montreal07-2925317577.dsl.bell.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 04:36:26 -!- aranhoide [~smuxi@43.Red-2-138-3.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 04:40:34 -!- hba [~hba@189.130.37.38] has quit [Quit: leaving] 04:41:26 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.208.66.22] has joined #scheme 04:51:39 -!- oxum [~oxum@122.164.105.247] has quit [Quit: Bye..] 04:51:54 oxum [~oxum@122.164.105.247] has joined #scheme 04:57:01 preflex_ [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 04:58:26 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 04:58:27 -!- preflex_ is now known as preflex 04:59:15 aranhoide [~smuxi@43.Red-2-138-3.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 04:59:59 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-166-185.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 05:10:41 -!- yacks [~py@103.6.159.103] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:15:24 Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #scheme 05:18:19 -!- mrowe is now known as mrowe_away 05:20:05 -!- tenq|away is now known as tenq 05:37:46 -!- kvda [~kvda@unaffiliated/kvda] has quit [Quit: z____z] 05:39:21 -!- oleo [~oleo@xdsl-87-79-198-156.netcologne.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:04:36 -!- nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:10:57 kvda [~kvda@unaffiliated/kvda] has joined #scheme 06:16:01 francis_wolke [~user@c-98-207-155-161.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 06:16:04 Has anyone here used scsh? If so, I'd be interested as to your thoughts as to it's quality. 06:16:58 dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 06:17:32 That sentence was an abomination. Apologies. 06:19:09 As to your sentence construction, it's ok, only irc. 06:19:52 I don't particularly see the need for scsh, so I'm not sure what the benefits would be. 06:22:22 kvda: Bash is a nightmare imho - scripting the shell with schemes sounds like a far more sane alternative. 06:24:48 bash is pretty bad, but it de-facto, there are better shells like pdksh, dash 06:32:29 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 06:39:02 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 06:41:55 githogori [~githogori@c-50-156-57-127.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 06:44:32 nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 06:45:20 -!- Kabaka [~Kabaka@botters/kabaka] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:48:06 Kabaka [~Kabaka@botters/kabaka] has joined #scheme 06:56:28 -!- kvda [~kvda@unaffiliated/kvda] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 07:10:42 -!- _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 07:16:23 pangxiaoniu [~cuoshi@211.151.238.51] has joined #scheme 07:22:58 -!- Kneferilis [~Kneferili@nb1-210.static.cytanet.com.cy] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:31:43 -!- nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:31:58 -!- Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/] 07:39:22 mksh is another option 07:39:22 I don't like dash 07:39:25 afaik dash isn't fully POSIX compliant 07:39:38 and it is used as the default sh on debian systems 07:44:28 -!- hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 07:51:20 _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has joined #scheme 07:51:48 -!- _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has quit [Client Quit] 07:52:04 _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has joined #scheme 08:04:10 amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 08:07:33 zacts: ash/dash is POSIX compliant, and has a few extensions. 08:08:14 TaylanUB: thanks for the correction! :-) my apologies 08:08:48 There was some specifically POSIX-only shell, too ... 08:09:38 posh, Policy-compliant Ordinary Shell, not sure how complete it is. 08:11:17 I wonder why kvda said ksh is "better" than bash, it just has a couple features less AFAIK. Maybe faster, but does that matter for a shell ? 08:11:56 TaylanUB: I don't know. I like bash myself.. 08:23:10 -!- amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 08:24:06 hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has joined #scheme 08:32:23 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 08:36:11 joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has joined #scheme 08:41:05 Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #scheme 09:08:01 -!- Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/] 09:18:42 Sgeo_ [~quassel@ool-ad034ea6.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #scheme 09:19:09 karswell` [~user@87.113.101.71] has joined #scheme 09:20:43 oxum_ [~oxum@122.164.105.247] has joined #scheme 09:21:25 acieroid` [~acieroid@wtf.awesom.eu] has joined #scheme 09:22:04 DerGuteM1ritz [~syn@asimov.bevuta.com] has joined #scheme 09:22:41 Razz_ [~tim@kompiler.org] has joined #scheme 09:26:56 -!- _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- oxum [~oxum@122.164.105.247] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- Razz [~tim@kompiler.org] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- ASau [~user@p54AFEEE1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- Sgeo [~quassel@ool-ad034ea6.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- entitativity [~entity@c-24-6-95-92.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- jewel [~jewel@105-236-138-104.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- DerGuteMoritz [~syn@asimov.bevuta.com] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- karswell [~user@87.113.101.71] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- eli [~eli@racket/eli] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:26:56 -!- acieroid [~acieroid@wtf.awesom.eu] has quit [*.net *.split] 09:27:13 -!- oxum_ is now known as oxum 09:28:50 ASau` [~user@p54AFEEE1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 09:33:11 jewel [~jewel@105-236-138-104.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #scheme 09:33:11 entitativity [~entity@c-24-6-95-92.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 09:34:08 amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@theo1.theochem.tu-muenchen.de] has joined #scheme 09:35:45 _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has joined #scheme 09:37:47 Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #scheme 09:38:54 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-166-185.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:46:18 -!- pangxiaoniu [~cuoshi@211.151.238.51] has left #scheme 09:52:07 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: leaving] 09:52:15 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 09:57:55 -!- dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 10:00:09 -!- jewel [~jewel@105-236-138-104.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 10:12:15 dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 10:15:36 TaylanUB: Posh is supposed to have exactly those features, that debian's policy requires of a /bin/sh, which is POSIX plus "local" and "echo -n". IIRC. 10:18:50 vraid [d91bbc5a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.217.27.188.90] has joined #scheme 10:31:43 pnkfelix [~Adium@89.202.203.51] has joined #scheme 10:36:30 Kneferilis [~Kneferili@nb1-210.static.cytanet.com.cy] has joined #scheme 10:39:35 -!- aranhoide [~smuxi@43.Red-2-138-3.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 10:39:41 -!- Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/] 10:56:29 aranhoide [~smuxi@165.Red-83-40-73.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 11:11:07 yacks [~py@103.6.159.103] has joined #scheme 11:13:01 jewel [~jewel@105-236-86-68.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #scheme 11:13:18 stepnem [~stepnem@internet2.cznet.cz] has joined #scheme 11:23:55 -!- aranhoide [~smuxi@165.Red-83-40-73.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 11:35:22 gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has joined #scheme 11:50:59 -!- b4283 [~b4283@60-249-196-111.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Quit: ] 12:15:51 -!- dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 12:16:36 -!- MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.208.66.22] has quit [Quit: MichaelRaskin] 12:25:21 -!- alexshendi [~alexshend@HSI-KBW-078-043-199-120.hsi4.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 12:29:22 zhaov [7b781354@gateway/web/freenode/ip.123.120.19.84] has joined #scheme 12:31:01 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 12:34:07 -!- zhaov [7b781354@gateway/web/freenode/ip.123.120.19.84] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 12:56:06 wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 12:58:52 -!- acieroid` is now known as acieroid 13:03:08 Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #scheme 13:11:51 kobain [~sambio@unaffiliated/kobain] has joined #scheme 13:15:57 round-robin [~bubo@91.224.149.58] has joined #scheme 13:18:09 -!- Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/] 13:20:44 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 13:25:38 edw [~edw@c-76-99-17-190.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 13:31:45 -!- jewel [~jewel@105-236-86-68.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 13:39:46 dsmith [~dsmith@cpe-184-56-129-232.neo.res.rr.com] has joined #scheme 13:42:33 Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #scheme 13:43:55 -!- Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Client Quit] 13:45:15 davexunit [~user@fsf/member/davexunit] has joined #scheme 13:48:57 -!- wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 13:54:23 xue [~nebula@112.65.62.186] has joined #scheme 14:05:54 oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-140-156.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 14:06:28 -!- oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-140-156.netcologne.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:07:19 oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-140-156.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 14:29:52 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@80.90.116.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:30:53 nebula [~nebula@112.65.62.186] has joined #scheme 14:31:09 -!- tenq is now known as tenq|away 14:31:36 -!- xue [~nebula@112.65.62.186] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:42:30 -!- Feng [~quassel@218.28.84.60] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 14:42:52 Feng [~quassel@218.28.84.60] has joined #scheme 14:43:24 -!- tenq|away is now known as tenq 14:46:32 -!- Upasana is now known as sweet_kid 14:46:41 TaylanUB, bash is not everywhere. If you're not going for portability, and you're not using bash as an interactive shell and writing interactive utilities for that, then writing programs in bash is silly -- you should just use a serious programming language. 14:47:23 gcartier [~gcartier@modemcable010.136-201-24.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #scheme 14:52:47 I certainly agree, didn't mean to imply otherwise if I did. 15:01:51 defanor_ [~defanor@ppp91-77-172-91.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 15:04:09 -!- defanor [~defanor@ppp91-77-191-124.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:04:59 -!- nebula [~nebula@112.65.62.186] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 15:05:13 nebula [~nebula@112.65.62.186] has joined #scheme 15:18:15 -!- kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 15:35:04 wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 15:36:53 -!- amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@theo1.theochem.tu-muenchen.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:41:43 -!- tenq is now known as tenq|away 15:45:28 Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #scheme 15:55:46 -!- tenq|away is now known as tenq 15:56:19 -!- edw [~edw@c-76-99-17-190.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.] 16:01:56 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:02:54 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 16:04:35 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-190-67.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 16:09:51 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 16:10:34 -!- githogori [~githogori@c-50-156-57-127.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 16:26:57 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 16:28:49 -!- round-robin [~bubo@91.224.149.58] has quit [Quit: leaving] 16:49:50 tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 16:50:04 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.161] has joined #scheme 16:54:22 -!- yacks [~py@103.6.159.103] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 16:59:50 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 17:04:59 -!- Cromulent [~Cromulent@cpc1-reig5-2-0-cust251.6-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/] 17:05:07 jewel [~jewel@105-236-138-104.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #scheme 17:13:18 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 17:14:00 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 17:19:41 -!- vraid [d91bbc5a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.217.27.188.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 17:24:05 -!- pnkfelix [~Adium@89.202.203.51] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 17:31:00 -!- joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 17:36:12 b4283 [~b4283@118.150.135.82] has joined #scheme 17:36:59 -!- ASau` is now known as ASau 17:51:10 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 17:51:16 -!- gcartier [~gcartier@modemcable010.136-201-24.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:55:57 -!- hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 18:01:10 githogori [~githogori@c-50-156-57-127.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 18:01:39 joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has joined #scheme 18:05:30 rien [~user1@38.105.226.18] has joined #scheme 18:06:39 edw [~edw@96.245.83.226] has joined #scheme 18:09:25 vraid [50d8e34d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.80.216.227.77] has joined #scheme 18:11:11 -!- b4283 [~b4283@118.150.135.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:13:49 -!- joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:23:27 joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has joined #scheme 18:27:07 -!- rien [~user1@38.105.226.18] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 18:27:29 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 18:40:31 -!- nebula [~nebula@112.65.62.186] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 18:43:31 hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has joined #scheme 18:47:52 duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 18:51:23 -!- Feng [~quassel@218.28.84.60] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 18:53:19 nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 18:56:39 Feng [~quassel@218.28.84.60] has joined #scheme 18:59:13 -!- joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:59:38 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 19:00:52 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 19:03:44 -!- oxum [~oxum@122.164.105.247] has quit [Quit: ...] 19:07:38 jao [~jao@234.144.14.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #scheme 19:07:42 -!- jao [~jao@234.144.14.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Changing host] 19:07:42 jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has joined #scheme 19:23:14 Feng__ [~quassel@218.28.84.60] has joined #scheme 19:23:19 -!- Feng [~quassel@218.28.84.60] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 19:28:57 -!- duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:36:36 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:37:16 duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 19:41:45 rien [~user1@38.105.226.18] has joined #scheme 19:42:55 jao [~jao@234.144.14.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #scheme 19:42:58 -!- jao [~jao@234.144.14.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Changing host] 19:42:58 jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has joined #scheme 19:43:08 -!- duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:00:50 -!- oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-140-156.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 20:01:18 oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-135-188.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 20:01:26 -!- Kabaka [~Kabaka@botters/kabaka] has quit [Quit: s/Kabaka//] 20:01:48 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 20:06:46 duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 20:07:56 Kabaka [~Kabaka@botters/kabaka] has joined #scheme 20:08:25 -!- mrowe_away is now known as mrowe 20:17:35 -!- edw [~edw@96.245.83.226] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com] 20:19:52 amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 20:23:45 -!- mrowe is now known as mrowe_away 20:24:03 aranhoide [~smuxi@108.Red-83-59-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 20:26:59 civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has joined #scheme 20:32:54 yacks [~py@103.6.159.103] has joined #scheme 20:34:31 -!- aranhoide [~smuxi@108.Red-83-59-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20:39:34 -!- tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: computer sleeping] 20:46:27 tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 20:47:29 -!- Kabaka [~Kabaka@botters/kabaka] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:52:02 -!- rien [~user1@38.105.226.18] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 20:58:18 aranhoide [~smuxi@108.Red-83-59-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 21:00:05 -!- duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:09:56 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 21:12:31 -!- aranhoide [~smuxi@108.Red-83-59-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 21:12:52 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 21:18:13 -!- tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: computer sleeping] 21:23:26 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 21:26:33 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-190-67.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 21:27:36 przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 21:28:57 joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has joined #scheme 21:35:40 -!- weie [~weie@softbank221078042071.bbtec.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 21:37:54 -!- joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:46:42 lo 21:47:51 tcsc [~tcsc@c-76-127-240-20.hsd1.ct.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 21:51:40 dash is broken shell, more broken than bash. 21:53:09 isn't there a new guile shell in the brew? 21:54:43 jcowan [~John@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has joined #scheme 21:56:28 ASau: anyway, I found another scheme interpreter -> https://github.com/higepon/mosh 21:56:36 it is in freebsd ports, let me check pkgsrc 21:57:07 http://mosh.monaos.org/files/doc/text/About-txt.html 21:57:14 F 21:57:22 wrong window, excuse 21:58:17 zacts: see http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq-standards#implementations 21:58:22 zacts: because official Scheme is small there's a tendency to write Scheme interpreters instead of software. 21:59:17 -!- jcowan [~John@mail.digitalkingdom.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:59:24 jcowan: BTW, scheme-reports.org doesn't have R7RS. 21:59:24 Well... 21:59:46 jcowan [~John@earth.ccil.org] has joined #scheme 21:59:53 jcowan: BTW, scheme-reports.org doesn't have R7RS. 22:00:01 jcowan: and r7rs.org says "not yet" still. 22:00:09 Yes. That's beyond my control ATM 22:00:35 Fortunately, it's been available from the Trac site for some time now 22:00:36 I can't say that it makes a good impression of the language. 22:00:41 I agree. 22:00:52 You have to apply extra force just to find the damn report. 22:01:10 It would be nice if you or some other officials would raise this issue publicly. 22:01:18 -!- TaylanUB [tub@p4FD9184C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Disconnected by services] 22:01:36 Unfortunately, the Steering Committee's steering has been broken since the beginning. 22:01:46 TaylanUB [tub@p4FD92AB1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 22:01:52 Getting them to do *anything*, including actually meet, is damn near impossible. 22:01:58 Another thing is that R7RS makes bad impression as a text. 22:02:10 To me at least. 22:02:11 In what way? 22:02:28 It reads as somewhat incoherent. 22:03:03 I have to start reading it again with pencil and paper behind me to write particular problems down. 22:03:22 That's not for the next week or month, I'm afraid. 22:04:03 Lingering impressions are: 22:05:33 ASau` [~user@p5083D4AE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 22:05:46 aranhoide [~smuxi@108.Red-83-59-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 22:06:01 Asau`: I didn't get any of them 22:08:47 -!- ASau [~user@p54AFEEE1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:08:59 jcowan: where have I stopped? 22:09:11 "Lingering impressions are:" 22:09:29 left me in suspense after that 22:09:55 "Any of" what?? 22:10:02 What were my last words before disconnection? 22:10:54 Your last words, from where I sit anyway, were "Lingering impressions are:" 22:11:35 -!- ASau` is now known as ASau 22:12:02 Thanks. 22:12:03 I was expecting to hear some of your lingering impressions of R7RS, but I didn't see any of them. 22:12:05 Alright. 22:12:11 Lingering impressions are: 22:12:19 r7rs.org is apparently parked 22:13:02 1. Reader, preprocessor, and procedural layers are intertwined and it makes text hard to comprehend. 22:13:56 I mean, if you don't have background, the text is incomprehensible anyway, 22:14:41 but the way it is composed currently makes it a bit hard to follow 22:15:08 even when you understand the terminology (macro, special form, etc). 22:15:41 2. In some places rationale is unclear, and I'd like to see some footnotes. 22:16:02 In particular in letrec* 22:16:59 3. Asthetically I don't like lack of symmetry between let and set! constructs. 22:17:45 let-values is fine, but there's no PSETQ and this makes it a bit inconvenient. 22:18:52 ASau: (Are you done? Because I have questions.) 22:19:55 That's all for now. 22:20:12 ASau: What do you mean with the asymmetry between let and set! constructs ? 22:20:19 TaylanUB: go ahead. 22:20:24 joneshf-laptop [~joneshf@086.112-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net] has joined #scheme 22:20:34 duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 22:22:19 There're let, let*, and let-values. 22:22:22 Scheme only has simple set!, which is like a one-armed let*; there is no mutation analogue to let or let-values. 22:22:25 But there's only set! 22:22:55 Thus when I need to translate code from Fortran, I need to go through 22:23:15 (let-values ... (set! ...) (set! ...) (set! ...)) 22:23:22 Or (let ... (set! ...) (set! ...) (set! ...)) 22:24:46 Scheme style typically avoids mutable variables except when doing poor man's objects. For one thing, mutable variables often have to be allocated on the heap. 22:24:56 (Thus I need to implement PSETQ, SHIFTF, and ROTATEF to be as effective in Scheme as in CL.) 22:24:57 But it would be simple to write a few macros for this purpose. 22:25:29 I know all that "avoid mutation". 22:25:52 You don't need to repeat it to me. 22:25:59 The problem is that a lot of algorithms interesting to me are written in imperative style. 22:27:08 If all this would be that easy, I wouldn't need using ROTATEF and other funky forms in CL. :) 22:28:00 I think the point is that the small/core language wouldn't be expected to support constructs outside of those that go hand-in-hand with the primarily endorsed style of programming, especially when macros can trivially implement that what is missing. 22:28:40 This is bad idea, IMO. 22:28:45 I'd certainly expect R7RS-large to have those in some library. 22:28:55 If you are so deep into FP, then you don't provide set! at all. 22:29:04 You can simulate it with closures anyway. 22:29:42 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p5DCA3E33.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 22:30:01 This isn't hard to implement either. 22:30:02 set! has been a hack literally from day one; Steele implemented it because it was easier to do than ref cells. 22:30:22 BTW, the phrase "special form" does not appear anywhere in R7RS 22:30:51 I don't remember how you call "if" and "cond". 22:32:19 Syntax. 22:33:19 Or syntax keywords, if you mean the identifiers themselves. 22:33:57 -!- preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:35:14 Hrm, does R7RS allow locally re-binding primitive syntax keywords ? 22:35:35 preflex [~preflex@unaffiliated/mauke/bot/preflex] has joined #scheme 22:35:50 -!- wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 22:36:21 TaylanUB: Yes 22:37:40 However, ' and ` are not hygienic: if you rebind "quote" or "quasiquote", then the meaning of ' and ` changes also. 22:37:47 -!- aranhoide [~smuxi@108.Red-83-59-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:40:00 -!- strobegen [~Adium@188.168.72.236] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 22:40:01 I agree that the discussion of letrec* is not very good, which is because I myself have trouble keeping a grip on the distinction between letrec and letrec*. 22:41:02 Well, my problem is that it is hard to understand whether it matches my expectation. 22:42:29 let rec f x = g x and g x = f x in f 0; 22:42:53 let rec f x = g x in let rec g x = f x in f 0; 22:44:11 The first is "letrec", the second is "letrec*". 22:44:51 But then there's strange limitation that you are not supposed to letrec* the same symbol twice. 22:45:24 The rationale is unclear to me. 22:45:25 It may be that I have missed or misunderstood it though. 22:46:01 -!- hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:47:20 aranhoide [~smuxi@10.Red-83-59-6.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 22:51:19 Does the same limitation exist for let* ? 22:51:35 The scope of the names defined in a letrec* is the whole expression, so binding a name more than once does not make snese. 22:51:38 sense, even 22:52:08 Ah indeed, that makes sense. 22:52:10 In let* it's perfectly reasonable, because the scope of a name defined in let* is only the parts of the let* after the name. 22:52:58 Letrec* comes up when you need to bind some names to non-procedures with let*, but you also need recursive procedures.. 22:53:14 It is a sort of hybrid of letrec and let*, not a let* version of letrec. 22:53:49 I personally prefer internal defines (which are equivalent to letrec*) to either letrec or letrec*. 23:01:24 I'd say that it is wrong. 23:01:53 letrec* should behave the same way as nested letrec with single symbol bound. 23:03:11 And in this case it is perfectly find to bind the same symbol again. 23:03:26 perfectly fine 23:06:24 Oh, right, before I forget. 23:06:51 Another thing I don't like in Scheme's letrec is that it doesn't follow the syntax of "define". 23:08:45 all we are saying is give scheme a chance! 23:09:44 :-) 23:09:50 -!- Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 23:09:51 -!- duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:11:00 In CL LABELS and FLET follow the common DEFUN syntax, 23:11:21 in Scheme all of them break it. 23:11:54 -!- amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 23:12:04 amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 23:12:43 hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has joined #scheme 23:13:30 ,scheme 23:13:38 'scheme 23:13:41 darn 23:14:19 I'm going to order my own personal copy of 'scheme and the art of programming'. I like it 23:14:34 after I read this book, I'm going to do the little schemer books 23:14:45 I'm making progress 23:15:39 zacts: try #'scheme it may be a function. :) 23:17:33 duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:18:04 -!- hiyosi [~skip_it@247.94.30.125.dy.iij4u.or.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 23:20:14 Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 23:21:31 -!- duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:22:54 ASau, if you like nesting LETREC like LET* you could always call it LET*REC, but what would you call the operation that the R7RS calls LETREC*? 23:23:16 duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 23:23:41 I wouldn't call it, it is plain broken. 23:24:15 Pray elaborate. It's how top-level definitions work. 23:25:23 Sorry? 23:25:26 That's definitly not how top-level definitions work. 23:25:45 Yes, it is how top-level definitions work. 23:25:54 No, it isn't. 23:25:58 ... 23:26:17 So what is your notion of how top-level definitions work? 23:26:23 I can redefine top-level symbol at any time, 23:26:26 and it is clear how it is redefined. 23:26:44 OK, it's how top-level definitions ignoring redefinitions work. 23:26:54 In top level "let*" and "set!" are equivalent. 23:27:03 fridim__ [~fridim@bas2-montreal07-2925317577.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #scheme 23:27:28 If I redefine recursive function, it just takes bindings from global environment 23:27:30 I'm curious to know how you consider them equivalent. 23:27:31 except for one symbol. 23:28:01 There's nothing undefined when I replace definition. 23:28:33 In any case, if you have a top-level sequence of the form `(define x E) ... F', where the x are variables and the E and F are expressions, it's equivalent to (letrec* ((x E) ...) F). In contrast, for internal definitions, it's (letrec ((x E) ...) F). 23:28:34 (defun x lambda-list body) is equivalent to (setf (symbol-function x) (lambda lambda-list body)). 23:28:47 DEFUN? SETF? We're talking about Scheme, right? 23:28:53 In Scheme you don't have symbols, 23:29:00 but the whole concept applies just fine. 23:29:12 No, it doesn't. 23:29:22 Why doesn't it? 23:29:32 Without (define x ...) in your program, x at the top level is undefined. No procedure calls can change that. 23:30:24 Alright, let's take your example. 23:30:34 If you have a top-level sequence like this: 23:30:52 (define x E1) (define x E2) ... F 23:31:07 Do you really mean that the behaviour is undefined with respect to value of x? 23:31:26 If it is, then 23:31:40 No. You can rewrite that as (define x E1) (set! x E2) ... F. 23:31:42 (letrec* ((x E1) (x E2) ...) F) is not equivalent to previous. 23:32:08 But I don't understand why you are bringing up redefinition. It has nothing to do with whether LETREC, LETREC*, or LET*REC is of more or less use than the others. 23:32:23 Because it matters. 23:32:35 -!- amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 23:32:46 amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD62C3B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 23:32:59 No, it doesn't. Rewrite the redefinition as an assignment; add a dummy variable if you like; turn it into a LETREC*. 23:32:59 letrec redefines things, one or another way. 23:33:07 Yes, it does. 23:33:08 (define x E1) (define dummy0 (set! x E2)) ... F 23:33:18 (letrec* ((x E1) (dummy0 (set! x E2)) ...) F) 23:33:22 Don't rewrite it as assignment. 23:33:38 !? 23:34:00 Start from the very beginning. 23:34:07 (define x E) ... F 23:34:08 Either you're arguing against a design or you're trying to state facts. Which one is it? 23:34:33 You claim that it is equivalent to (letrec* ((x E) ...) F). 23:34:42 Correct, provided that you convert redefinitions to assignments. 23:34:46 ...at the top level. 23:34:58 Internal definitions, however, use LETREC, not LETREC*, and do not admit redefinition. 23:35:08 Thus, it isn't equivalent. 23:35:16 ... 23:35:29 "provided" establishes additional condition. 23:35:32 You're being deliberately difficult. Stop it or I won't try to help you understand the design. 23:35:37 Instead, I will plonk you. 23:35:43 may I interrupt and paste some code for some questions I have? 23:35:56 No, this is not deliberate. 23:36:05 Does Scheme allow (define x E1) (define x E2) or not? 23:36:11 It absolutely is. I elided a step in the transformation because it is irrelevant to whether `LETREC* is wrong'. 23:36:45 If you must: (define x E1) (define y E2) (define x E3) ... F is equivalent to (letrec* ((x E1) (y E2) (dummy0 (set! x E3)) ...) F). 23:36:56 (at the top level) 23:37:19 zacts, go for it. 23:37:22 Now give the reason why it is so. 23:37:32 http://paste.lisp.org/display/140300 23:37:36 Riastradh: ^ 23:37:43 No. First say why LETREC* is wrong but LETREC and LET*REC aren't. 23:37:53 I'd say that it is so because letrec* is plain broken now. 23:38:02 I can't seem to figure out why it's only printing debugging prints for the 4th cond clause 23:38:03 The reason is simple. 23:38:19 I'm trying to get it to print debugging prints for each cond clause 23:38:36 (letrec* ((x E1) (x E2)) F) at top level is equivalent to 23:38:39 (define x E1) (define x E2) F 23:38:52 (this is an exercise in scheme and the art of programming, I'm probably missing something simple, this is my solution so far..) 23:39:23 ...provided that you don't deliberatly break letrec* to be undefined when you redefine symbol. 23:39:43 No, (letrec* ((x E1) (x E2)) F) is an error. Redefinition serves as a debugging feature. That doesn't make sense in LETREC* because you can't just re-evaluate a single clause. 23:39:53 Why is it an error? 23:40:05 No sensible code would ever do that. 23:40:06 (Except for making deliberate choice to do so.) 23:40:22 Sorry? 23:40:38 No sensible code would do (letrec* ((x E1) (x E2)) F). 23:40:40 -!- duggiefresh [~duggiefre@c-66-30-11-90.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:40:52 That's just nonsense. 23:41:39 In any case, your proposed nested LETREC is wronger in that it isn't even equivalent to redefinition. 23:41:51 Why exactly is it "wronger"? 23:42:02 'Cos it's broken! 23:42:09 That's just nonsense. 23:42:25 Consider (define x 0) (define (f) x) (define x 1) (f). Does that give 0 or 1? 23:42:40 Consider (let*rec ((x 0) (f (lambda () x)) (x 1)) (f)). Does that give 0 or 1? 23:43:39 Both give 0, obviously. 23:43:42 -!- civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 23:43:42 False. 23:43:47 First gives 1; second gives 0. 23:43:54 Bullshit! 23:44:03 1 ]=> (begin (define x 0) (define (f) x) (define x 1) (f)) 23:44:03 ;Value: 1 23:44:18 Riastradh: you didn't have a begin 23:44:29 Irrelevant. At the top level, BEGIN splices. 23:45:02 This goes down the question whether your define binds or sets. 23:45:53 Riastradh: sorry, no I was just pointing out that you didn't have a begin with "Consider (define x 0) (define (f) x)..." I don't know if that is an issue, but I'm trying to follow. I'm still a newbie.. 23:46:22 zacts: the issue is now whether "define" binds symbols or sets them. 23:46:54 On first definition it binds them; redefinition assigns. As I said, it's a debugging feature. 23:47:20 Sensible programs don't write (define x E1) (define x E2). This happens when you write (define x E1), load your program, change it to (define x E2), and hit C-M-x. 23:47:51 And these people tell us how CL is unhigyenic. :D 23:48:50 If you want to exchange cheap jabs I could suggest that you use a spelling corrector, but I assumed you were interested in discussing the technical merits of the Scheme standard. 23:50:10 I'm sure that you cannot discuss this topic in my native language, thus you hit the air. 23:50:26 zacts, anyway, do you want it to say when it tries all clauses, or only when it chooses a clause? 23:50:48 Riastradh: only when the test for a cond clause is true 23:51:56 Anyway, this funky behaviour of "define" doesn't make "letrec*" non-broken. 23:51:59 oh I figured out the bug 23:52:02 \o/ 23:52:22 It only means that you cannot rewrite sequence of defines in term of letrec* straightforward way. 23:52:35 Riastradh: I'm calling swapper instead of recursing into swapper-test 23:52:47 I forgot to s/swapper/swapper-test/ 23:52:55 so it's only printing the top level test 23:53:20 I'm sure I can't, and I'm sorry for jumping on your spelling like that. I was trying to lean toward discussion of technical merit, but got frustrated trying to have one with you because it's not clear what merit you're discussing and you seem keen to apply value judgments to true statements about how Scheme works. 23:53:25 why on earth would you want to rewrite definitions within a letrec 23:54:05 For demonstration. 23:54:52 For example, I was being neither dishonest nor cavalier about my word when I told you that one program earlier gave 1 and the other gave 0, but calling that `bullshit' accuses me of both. 23:55:39 I'm off to have dinner now. 23:55:52 You have picked up wrong example, it seems. 23:56:36 As it turns out behaviour at top level is not the strong thing in Scheme. 23:57:54 At least it cannot be rewritten with "let" forms easily.