00:00:14 -!- ASau [~user@p54AFE2E5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:12:03 -!- davexunit [~user@fsf/member/davexunit] has quit [Quit: Later] 00:20:14 cbsw [~cbsw@116.208.173.99] has joined #scheme 00:24:09 zRecursive [~czsq888@183.12.88.158] has joined #scheme 00:28:14 taylanub: thanks for the help 00:29:18 -!- iron_houzi [~houzi@cm-84.211.65.20.getinternet.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 00:29:56 davexunit [~user@fsf/member/davexunit] has joined #scheme 00:35:57 michaniskin [~anonymous@c-174-48-131-211.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 00:35:57 iron_houzi [~houzi@cm-84.211.65.20.getinternet.no] has joined #scheme 00:36:35 hi everyone! What does this syntax mean, please? (define ((monitor-xy win) state) ...) 00:37:01 (define monitor-xy (lambda (win) (lambda (state) ...))) 00:37:07 *poof* 00:37:12 Riastradh: thank you 00:37:49 Riastradh: do you by any chance happen to use vim? 00:37:55 this is called "currying" yes? 00:38:46 -!- theseb [~cs@74.194.237.26] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:41:16 -!- tenq|away is now known as tenq 00:41:29 -!- Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:49:23 michaniskin: no it's called desugaring 00:50:03 michaniskin: currying = (define (f a b) ...) -> (define f (lambda (a) (lambda (b) ...))) 00:50:53 Scheme doesn't do that with the define form though 00:51:16 some versions let you do something like (define ((f a) b) ...) though 01:00:13 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 01:04:59 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 01:05:06 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 01:05:21 -!- jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 01:16:43 -!- oxum [~oxum@122.164.16.202] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 01:17:33 oxum [~oxum@122.164.208.162] has joined #scheme 01:18:13 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 01:30:43 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: jhao] 01:34:31 phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has joined #scheme 01:42:25 -!- ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:42:55 ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has joined #scheme 01:45:38 slaymer [4e5ab2c5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.90.178.197] has joined #scheme 01:55:00 -!- ASau` is now known as ASau 01:59:08 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 02:00:13 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 02:05:07 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:07:12 zacts: Riastradh mentioned using Edwin the other day, which I suppose makes sense since they're the MIT/GNU Scheme maintainer. 02:07:28 There was a Vim-using Lisper somewhere .. might've been in #guile. 02:08:09 oh there's a coupe. 02:08:10 couple. 02:08:15 I hear Paul Graham uses vim 02:08:56 I use vim 02:09:12 zacts: There's also a Vim-emulating mode in Emacs if you just want modal editing. 02:10:04 called "evil". They had an IRC channel too, #evil or #evil-mode I guess. 02:10:37 there's also viper 02:11:30 *offby1* is always suspicious of modes whereby one editor emulates another 02:12:24 -!- ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:12:30 -!- zRecursive [~czsq888@183.12.88.158] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:12:39 ezio [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 02:12:39 -!- ezio [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Changing host] 02:12:39 ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has joined #scheme 02:14:45 offby1: It does tip me off how they really copy Vim in many ways instead of focusing on integrating modal editing or whatever neat features Vim has into Emacs in a more natural way. I didn't use it for long though, so maybe their decisions make more sense than what I think, like copying Vim so Vim users can drop right into it instead of having to learn some midpoint between Emacs and Vim. 02:15:12 But otherwise nothing wrong with modal editing in Emacs. 02:16:04 Though I prefer modkeys since I switched to Emacs and gave up on evil-mode. 02:16:30 ddp [~ddp@c75-111-101-191.amrlcmta01.tx.dh.suddenlink.net] has joined #scheme 02:16:55 -!- ddp [~ddp@c75-111-101-191.amrlcmta01.tx.dh.suddenlink.net] has quit [Client Quit] 02:19:00 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: jhao] 02:19:13 -!- phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:23:24 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 02:27:28 offby1: i use evil in emacs. not an emacs expert by any means (longtime vim user) 02:28:42 offby1: it's totally usable for me. i use it to edit clojure files and things like that. the paredit mode in vim was too buggy for me to use in the end so now i am using emacs 02:28:57 taylanub: I use vim bro 02:28:59 me__ [~yayutf@p5DC5645C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 02:29:12 -!- me__ is now known as yayutf 02:29:28 I also use pentadactyl, and vim mode in bash 02:32:38 -!- yayutf_ [~yayutf@p5DC56753.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 02:34:27 -!- cbsw [~cbsw@116.208.173.99] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 02:39:46 nisstyre: I'm not your bro, pal. 02:39:59 sorry, brah 02:40:04 phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has joined #scheme 02:40:18 WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG 02:45:10 -!- maxs` [maxs`@gateway/shell/ircrelay.com/x-wlxplyxbnqctdlkq] has left #scheme 02:49:17 cbsw [~cbsw@116.208.177.31] has joined #scheme 02:50:38 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 02:51:04 -!- michaniskin [~anonymous@c-174-48-131-211.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has left #scheme 02:55:01 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 03:04:14 -!- phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:04:40 phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has joined #scheme 03:39:52 ezioa [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 03:40:11 -!- ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:45:04 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:50:41 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 03:55:07 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 03:56:23 Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme 03:59:19 tupi [~user@189.60.14.237] has joined #scheme 04:05:17 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: jhao] 04:05:31 amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 04:08:38 -!- amgarchIn9 [~amgarchin@p4FD603E3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 04:10:23 -!- tupi [~user@189.60.14.237] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:13:00 b4283 [~b4283@36-238-233-136.dynamic-ip.hinet.net] has joined #scheme 04:17:48 -!- zacts [~user@unaffiliated/zacts] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:23:06 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 04:23:10 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:32:53 -!- copec [~copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has quit [Excess Flood] 04:33:18 copec_ [~copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has joined #scheme 04:33:18 -!- copec_ [~copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has quit [Excess Flood] 04:34:18 copec [~copec@schrodbox.unaen.org] has joined #scheme 04:34:44 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:35:41 copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #scheme 04:39:18 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 04:43:11 poucet_ [~chris@li23-146.members.linode.com] has joined #scheme 04:48:52 eziob [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 04:49:03 -!- poucet [~chris@li23-146.members.linode.com] has quit [Write error: Broken pipe] 04:50:44 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 04:50:49 jeapostrophe [~jay@racket/jeapostrophe] has joined #scheme 04:51:35 -!- ezioa [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer] 04:54:32 -!- tenq is now known as tenq|away 04:55:15 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 05:00:13 -!- tenq|away is now known as tenq 05:06:40 -!- antoszka [~antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 05:09:53 zRecursive [~czsq888@183.13.202.247] has joined #scheme 05:15:15 zacts [~zacts@unaffiliated/zacts] has joined #scheme 05:18:02 pierpa [~user@95.236.58.43] has joined #scheme 05:22:10 antoszka [~antoszka@unaffiliated/antoszka] has joined #scheme 05:25:09 -!- nisstyre [~y@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 05:30:10 -!- cbsw [~cbsw@116.208.177.31] has quit [Read error: Connection timed out] 05:31:04 cbsw [~cbsw@116.208.177.31] has joined #scheme 05:37:08 -!- phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:37:17 bjz_ [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 05:38:36 -!- bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 05:38:53 -!- amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 05:45:37 weie [~weie@softbank221078042071.bbtec.net] has joined #scheme 05:50:38 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 05:51:54 gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-184-8.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has joined #scheme 05:55:06 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 06:28:19 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 06:28:33 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 06:28:55 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 06:31:48 jewel [~jewel@105-237-68-160.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #scheme 06:34:51 -!- jeapostrophe [~jay@racket/jeapostrophe] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 06:46:03 phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has joined #scheme 07:14:13 -!- bjz_ [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 07:17:16 bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 07:21:48 -!- bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 07:23:58 -!- phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:24:29 bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 07:24:33 -!- bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:39:01 -!- eziob [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 08:00:08 phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has joined #scheme 08:30:40 bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 08:54:19 -!- zRecursive [~czsq888@183.13.202.247] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:24:20 eziob [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 09:29:54 CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has joined #scheme 09:29:59 -!- CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has quit [Client Quit] 09:41:35 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 09:47:29 -!- bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 09:50:06 bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 09:54:04 round-robin [~bubo@91.224.149.58] has joined #scheme 10:03:47 -!- phipes [~phipes@unaffiliated/phipes] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:04:48 -!- clog [~nef@bespin.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 10:05:36 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:06:50 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 10:09:45 -!- eziob [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 10:11:39 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 10:20:53 tiksa [~tiksa@gateway/tor-sasl/tiksa] has joined #scheme 10:26:13 CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has joined #scheme 10:27:27 -!- CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:36:26 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 10:41:03 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 11:03:20 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 11:08:02 -!- round-robin [~bubo@91.224.149.58] has left #scheme 11:09:43 -!- bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 11:12:31 bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 11:36:37 -!- _5kg [~zifeitong@60.191.2.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:40:08 -!- slaymer [4e5ab2c5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.90.178.197] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 11:43:50 jaccas [~pjfcl@3.182.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #scheme 12:01:29 clog [~nef@bespin.org] has joined #scheme 12:12:04 foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-255-229.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 12:18:27 -!- oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-161-165.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 12:19:09 oleo [~oleo@xdsl-78-35-159-149.netcologne.de] has joined #scheme 12:30:25 -!- ffs [~garland@unaffiliated/ffs] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:30:43 ffs [~garland@unaffiliated/ffs] has joined #scheme 12:31:02 -!- bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:31:21 bjz [~bjz@125.253.99.68] has joined #scheme 12:36:39 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 12:40:58 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 12:55:30 add^_ [~user@m5-241-186-97.cust.tele2.se] has joined #scheme 13:06:02 -!- Kneferilis [~Kneferili@nb1-210.static.cytanet.com.cy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:17:19 jeronimo [~cgiirc@fantasy.ircgate.it] has joined #scheme 13:18:24 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-190-133.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 13:23:11 -!- jeronimo [~cgiirc@fantasy.ircgate.it] has quit [Quit: IRCGate CGI:IRC User] 13:27:05 rszeno [~rszeno@79.114.35.17] has joined #scheme 13:27:34 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 13:33:41 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-182-115.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 13:34:28 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 13:37:28 jeapostrophe [~jay@216-21-162-70.slc.googlefiber.net] has joined #scheme 13:37:28 -!- jeapostrophe [~jay@216-21-162-70.slc.googlefiber.net] has quit [Changing host] 13:37:28 jeapostrophe [~jay@racket/jeapostrophe] has joined #scheme 13:37:51 juxovec_ [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 13:38:11 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 13:40:47 amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 13:43:50 -!- tenq is now known as tenq|away 13:45:52 -!- juxovec_ [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:46:30 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 13:48:31 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 13:50:26 juxovec_ [~juxovec@155.Red-80-32-126.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 13:51:14 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 13:51:14 -!- b4283 [~b4283@36-238-233-136.dynamic-ip.hinet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 14:01:07 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 14:04:43 wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 14:06:01 -!- weie [~weie@softbank221078042071.bbtec.net] has left #scheme 14:07:53 -!- amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 14:11:58 -!- foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-255-229.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 14:12:52 amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 14:19:50 przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 14:24:10 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 14:44:02 etenil [~user@46-65-68-203.zone16.bethere.co.uk] has joined #scheme 14:45:00 Hi there, are there associative arrays in Scheme? I've been looking online but it all seems very confusing. Could you help? 14:50:18 simple google search http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Associative_array/Creation#Scheme 14:51:10 etenil: yeah; there are either hashmaps or alists, depending on your use-case and taste 14:52:06 ah I see 14:52:15 I think alists would suit my use-case 14:53:12 thanks for the help 14:53:35 cool 14:55:56 b4283 [~b4283@118.150.148.244] has joined #scheme 14:55:59 etenil, sorry, but was not too much, and not because i ( probably we ) don't want to help, :) 15:09:43 no that's alright, I've found it hard to find documentation about scheme actually 15:10:05 the fact that "scheme" is a common word doesn't help search engines ;) 15:12:11 i usually just throw in "lisp" somewhere among the search words :p 15:13:42 well yeah, but then you get some common lisp or elisp noise :( 15:14:18 yea 15:16:14 -!- etenil [~user@46-65-68-203.zone16.bethere.co.uk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:18:09 foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 15:37:09 -!- amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:43:56 MichaelRaskin [~MichaelRa@195.91.224.161] has joined #scheme 15:46:44 -!- Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 15:47:38 -!- cbsw [~cbsw@116.208.177.31] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 15:53:37 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 16:05:23 Fishlord_Murloc [~nevzets@unaffiliated/nevzets] has joined #scheme 16:06:42 Friends, romans, what I'm looking for is something like this: http://hastebin.com/raw/solokujadi 16:07:01 Is that possible without having to define your own lambda and let and let* and letrec* etc? 16:09:09 theseb [~cs@74.194.237.26] has joined #scheme 16:09:15 rudybot: (or 3 ()) 16:09:16 theseb: your sandbox is ready 16:09:16 theseb: error: #:1:6: #%app: missing procedure expression; probably originally (), which is an illegal empty application in: (#%app) 16:09:20 why does that die? 16:09:28 Fishlord_Murloc: i don't get what exactly do you need. are you looking for 'set!'? 16:09:29 seems short circuiting (special form) should save it?! 16:09:49 i've been dying since last nite wondering 16:10:29 theseb: um, what do you want to represent by "()"? 16:10:43 it's written there, that it's illegal empty application 16:10:46 defanor: i thought that was irrelevant thanks to short circuiting 16:10:58 defanor: i.e. 2nd param never gets eval'd 16:11:00 defanor, well, set! does that but it's unsafe because it can be used conditionally. 16:11:19 as in in that context set! is identical but you can do (if cond (set! x y)) 16:11:29 defanor: and () is an empty list i thought 16:11:38 theseb: '() is an empty list 16:11:48 -!- juxovec_ [~juxovec@155.Red-80-32-126.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:11:51 So I suppose what I want to know is, can you define a macro which is basically set! except that it requires itself to be on the top of a block scope only? 16:12:06 Much like the use of define is limited to certain contexts or a syntax error is thrown 16:12:56 theseb, it's a syntax error basically. 16:13:12 Putting () in expression context is not legal syntax. 16:13:38 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 16:13:42 defanor, Fishlord_Murloc: so basically even though or has short circuiting...scheme *STILL* does a syntax check of the arg..ok thanks..i think i got it 16:13:46 In Common Lisp () evaluates to itself, in Scheme I believe what () evaluates to is undefined and implementation dependent and many implementations outlaw it. 16:13:53 theseb, racket does 16:14:21 rudybot: '() 16:14:22 theseb: ; Value: '() 16:14:27 THis is implementation dependent, Racket for instance refuses to compile your program with lexical unbound identifiers, some scheme implementations run it and dynamically report if you try to reference an unbound identifier. 16:14:29 theseb: it does syntax check before eval, to read program and to eval macros at least 16:14:32 rudybot: () 16:14:32 Fishlord_Murloc: your sandbox is ready 16:14:32 Fishlord_Murloc: error: #:1:0: #%app: missing procedure expression; probably originally (), which is an illegal empty application in: (#%app) 16:14:43 at least some syntax check 16:15:01 defanor: thanks...so (or 2 (2 ) wouldn't work too for syntax reasons 16:15:35 rudybot: (let () (define (thunk) ()) #f) 16:15:35 Fishlord_Murloc: error: #:1:24: #%app: missing procedure expression; probably originally (), which is an illegal empty application in: (#%app) 16:15:53 That would work I think 16:15:55 () is an empty function call 16:15:59 it's just not allowed 16:16:08 rudybot (or 2 (2)) 16:16:11 rudybot: (or 2 (2)) 16:16:12 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: 2 16:16:14 Yeah, that works 16:16:14 2 is not a procedure 16:16:17 (2) is not illegal syntax 16:16:18 Yeah 16:16:23 But that's a dynamic thing. 16:16:25 rudybot: (or (2) 2) 16:16:26 elly: your sandbox is ready 16:16:26 elly: error: application: not a procedure; expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments given: 2 arguments...: [none] 16:16:34 anyway, yeah, the syntax is allowed 16:16:37 rudybot: '2 16:16:38 theseb: ; Value: 2 16:16:54 defanor: hey!!!?? '2 eval's to 2 but '() evals to () ?!?!?! 16:16:58 watch 16:17:04 rudybot: '() 16:17:04 theseb: ; Value: '() 16:17:06 errr 16:17:25 ' is a reader macro for (quote ) 16:17:39 i mean....i expected () not '() as result 16:17:44 the quote special form simply returns its argument unevaluated if we allow ourselves to reason about scheme homoiconically. 16:17:51 rudybot DISPLAYs the values it's returning 16:17:53 c.f.: 16:17:54 rudybot: "abc" 16:17:55 elly: ; Value: "abc" 16:18:02 Fishlord_Murloc: yes...so '() should drop the quote and return ()! !!! 16:18:06 no, it should not 16:18:09 theseb, that is a non standard thing how racket prints values which is very controversial 16:18:15 elly, arguably it should 16:18:15 because, as I said, rudybot re-quotes it when it outputs it :P 16:18:28 theseb, what racket does is it prints the simplest expression which EVALUATES to what you have 16:18:35 As in, what you should type yourself to get that 16:18:37 ^ 16:18:45 this person is right 16:18:45 Which is controversial behaviour breaking tradition. 16:19:00 Basically, racket does not consider scheme homo-iconic more ro less. 16:19:04 Which the standard does not really define 16:19:25 rudybot: (list 1 2 3) 16:19:25 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 2 3) 16:20:20 Fishlord_Murloc: are you saying racket returns () for '() unlike rudybot? 16:20:24 amgarching [~amgarchin@p4FD63D4B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 16:20:40 rudybot: (let ('-) '3) 16:20:40 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: -3 16:20:48 theseb rudybot uses racket. 16:20:59 I'm saying that racket writes () as '() 16:21:09 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 16:21:11 Fishlord_Murloc: oh hey...i just tested '() in guile and it returned () ..not '() 16:21:16 Racket prints out the simplest expression it can think of which evaluates to the actual value. 16:21:22 Yeah, guile does not do that. 16:21:32 As far as I know, racket is the only implementation which breaks this tradition. 16:21:33 ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has joined #scheme 16:21:53 It does not print the external rep of the datum, it prints the simplest expression which would result in that datum 16:22:33 elly, would you know some way toa chieve this though with a macro: http://hastebin.com/raw/solokujadi 16:22:36 You seem fairly knowledgeable 16:22:45 Fishlord_Murloc: () is not a syntax error in the sense that )2 is 16:22:56 Fishlord_Murloc: proof....')2 doesn't eval but '() does! 16:22:58 (in guile) 16:23:00 It is actually. 16:23:16 As far as the scheme standard goes () is not even discussed as far as I know 16:23:18 what it should be. 16:23:31 Fishlord_Murloc: then why does '() eval in guile? 16:23:34 theseb, the thing is, scheme is not homo-iconic. 16:23:39 Because '() is correct syntax. 16:23:53 The scheme standard does not define a code-as-data repraesentation. 16:24:02 ok..thanks all for help..must go to church now 16:24:10 Implementations may do so but (+ 1 2) is just scheme code. 16:24:16 It's just syntax. 16:26:11 Hmm, let me ask it like this though, is it possible to have a macro limit its own context? 16:26:22 Similarly to how define cannot appear in arbitrary expression context, is it possible to write your own macro which can only appear in the contexts where define can? 16:26:39 Like, do syntax objects expose this information in some way that can be processed? 16:27:40 I'll take a look but I am no macro ninja 16:28:21 I don't know if this can be done without having a macro for define :| 16:28:59 because you want the effects of the `foo' macro to escape the syntactic form it's used in 16:30:23 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-182-115.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 16:30:33 you could have, hrm, something like define-with-locals that does it 16:32:10 Fishlord_Murloc: a hack to try would be to define a macro that expands into a bogus define and then something else 16:32:48 you wouldn't use the define itself, but just put it there to make it an error to expand the macro wherever a define would be illegal 16:32:55 urgh, though 16:33:02 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:33:23 yup, it's admittedly a hack. I don't know why he or she needs that though 16:33:25 estevocastro, hmm 16:33:25 (begin (define x x) (set! ...))? 16:33:37 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 16:33:53 hm, the problem is that a begin in an inner scope doesn't splice 16:33:53 estevocastro, ohh, I like you already, not only are you mindful of the possibility of women, you did not use the singular they. 16:34:13 I use they a lot too, so don't like me that much :) 16:34:17 haha 16:34:21 estevocastro, the inner scope non slice thing is a problem yeah hmm. 16:34:23 *elly* uses singular they all the time 16:34:36 the problem you're going to have with the (begin ...) hack is that you still have to have an enclosing begin form 16:34:41 urgh. 16:34:53 in which case you might as well have an enclosing begin-let form or something :| 16:35:01 I actually don't know what the behaviour of (if cond (begin (define ...) ...)) is? 16:35:03 What is it? 16:35:16 Like, is the define local to the begin? 16:35:24 Or is that illegal? 16:35:38 *elly* installs racket real quick to check :) 16:35:45 well, "real quick" 16:35:54 really quickly actually. 16:35:58 I take good grammar very seriously. 16:36:04 rudybot: (if 1 (begin (define x 1) x) 0) 16:36:04 elly: error: #:1:13: define: not allowed in an expression context in: (define x 1) 16:36:10 yeah, that's not going to fly 16:36:19 But ehh, the cleanest solution is to to expand to set! but report an error message if it's used in the wrong context. 16:36:19 I'd guess the define is local to the begin, but I don't know from the top of my head 16:36:33 in fact I bet that: 16:36:36 So I wonder if syntax objects maybe expose the context in some way? 16:36:39 (begin (define x 3) x) 16:36:40 er 16:36:47 rudybot: (begin (define x 3) x) 16:36:47 elly: ; Value: 3 16:36:49 rudybot: x 16:36:49 elly: ; Value: 3 16:36:56 yeah, the define 'leaks' out of the begin into the global scope 16:37:11 syntax objects? I imagine that's implementation specific. which one are you using? 16:37:12 rudybot: (+ (begin (define x 3) x)) 16:37:12 Fishlord_Murloc: error: #:1:10: define: not allowed in an expression context in: (define x 3) 16:37:15 (begin (set! y 5) y) 16:37:16 Begin 16:37:19 bingo 16:37:24 rudybot: (begin (set! y 5) y) 16:37:24 elly: error: set!: assignment disallowed; cannot set variable before its definition variable: y in module: 'program 16:37:24 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 16:37:30 That's the error I want 16:37:32 yeah, set! won't work either :| 16:37:34 juxovec_ [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 16:37:46 Would be nice if the error message could be cleaner though. 16:37:47 rudybot: (let () (define x 9)) 16:37:47 defanor: your sandbox is ready 16:37:48 defanor: error: #:1:0: begin (possibly implicit): no expression after a sequence of internal definitions in: (begin (define x 9)) 16:37:55 ouch 16:38:36 rudybot: (let () (define x 9) x) 16:38:36 estevocastro: your sandbox is ready 16:38:36 estevocastro: ; Value: 9 16:38:37 anyway, I can't think of even a hacky way to achieve what you want, since `define' is not scoped 16:38:54 (it appears to always write to the top-level environment) 16:39:10 it's begin that doesn't create a scope I think 16:39:30 `define' is scoped to lambdas and therefore to let forms 16:39:38 is that true? 16:39:38 Also, using set! wouldn't work because it can be used to then also set! variables from an outer scope. 16:39:55 rudybot: (let () (define z 6) z) 16:39:55 elly: ; Value: 6 16:39:56 rudybot: z 16:39:57 elly: error: z: undefined; cannot reference an identifier before its definition in module: 'program 16:39:59 okay, phew :) 16:40:00 rudybot: (begin (let () (define x 9) x) x) 16:40:01 estevocastro: error: x: undefined; cannot reference an identifier before its definition in module: 'program 16:40:32 Hmm 16:42:05 -!- juxovec_ [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:43:17 So there's no real way for a macro take the form next to it? 16:43:42 no 16:43:49 Define a macro that matches (foo x y) exp and rewrite this to (let ((x y) exp) 16:43:52 Pity. 16:44:03 that would be like a function that reaches into the expression after its own invocation :P 16:44:08 i.e., impossible to reason about 16:44:10 Well, macro is macro. 16:44:36 I wouldn't say it's impossible to reason about static syntax rewrite, it might open a nasty can of worms though. 16:45:41 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-190-156.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 16:45:59 hehe 16:46:01 yes 16:47:50 It's a bit quaint that scheme doesn't have a form which does that though, it seems like define is OCaml's let rec but scheme has no let. 16:47:50 It has let ... in ..., let rec ... in ..., let rec, but no let. 16:48:06 what does ocaml's 'let' do? 16:54:18 googled it, "bind variables within a scope". in scheme it's define's task in internal definitions, but those are only definitions in "lambda, let, let*, letrec, letrec*, let-values, let*-values, let-syntax, letrec-syntax, parameterize, guard, or case-lambda" 16:54:31 elly, it's a top level binding like define except not recursive 16:54:38 and it also shadows the same name above it. 16:54:47 ahh 16:54:52 well, define does shadowing 16:55:00 Basically the effect of putting let x = 3;; let y = 4;; etc at the top level is much like that of let* 16:55:24 elly, yeah, but you can't do (define x 3) (define x (+ x 1)) at the top level in Scheme. 16:55:34 At least not portibly. 16:55:40 rudybot: (define x 3) (define x (+ x 1)) x 16:55:41 elly: but... if I (define x 3) in the global scope, no problem 16:55:48 haha 16:55:55 rudybot can't take multiple expressions 16:55:59 rudybot: eval (define x 3) (define x (+ x 1)) x 16:55:59 elly: ; Value: 4 16:56:08 ok, well, it does what I'd expect in racket :) 16:56:19 Racket supports it, guile doesn't. 16:56:22 rudybot: metasyntactic 16:56:22 elly: error: metasyntactic: undefined; cannot reference an identifier before its definition in module: 'program 16:56:28 argh rudybot 16:56:29 rudybot: stop it 16:56:31 elly: I wonder if the motive behind the [] syntax was to actually improve the aesthetics of s-expressions, or to just stop the wining about too many parenthesis. 16:56:40 there :P 16:57:15 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (define xs (cons x xs)) xs) (f 1 2 3) 16:57:16 Fishlord_Murloc: your sandbox is ready 16:57:16 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 . #) 16:57:25 Same problem I get in guile. 16:58:26 It creates a weird circular dependency which results into that. 16:59:32 *elly* nods 17:03:59 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 17:09:28 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (define xs (let ((dummy (cons x xs))) dummy)) xs) (f 1 2 3) 17:09:28 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 . #) 17:09:34 Hmm, still 17:10:19 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (define xs (let ((dummy #f)) (set! dummy (cons x xs)) dummy)) xs) (f 1 2 3) 17:10:19 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 . #) 17:10:24 Wow 17:11:23 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (begin (define dummy xs) (define xs (cons x dummy))) xs) (f 1 2 3) 17:11:24 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 . #) 17:11:27 Wooow 17:11:49 hrm, does guile have a way to express preconditions for functions ? 17:12:42 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (begin (define dummy #f) (set! dummy xs) (define xs (cons x dummy))) xs) (f 1 2 3) 17:12:42 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 . #) 17:12:51 wow 17:13:00 wow? :P 17:13:10 I have no idea how this can be. 17:13:19 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (begin (define dummy #f) (set! dummy xs) (define ys (cons x dummy))) ys) (f 1 2 3) 17:13:20 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 2 3) 17:13:26 -!- b4283 [~b4283@118.150.148.244] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:13:28 And that randomly works 17:15:02 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:16:19 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 17:17:38 tupi [~user@189.60.14.237] has joined #scheme 17:25:50 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 17:28:34 mark_weaver [~user@ip72-221-68-65.ri.ri.cox.net] has joined #scheme 17:29:04 estevocastro: You wrote earlier that 'begin' in an inner scope does not splice. That's incorrect. 17:29:18 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-190-156.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 17:30:07 'begin' splices anywhere that definitions are allowed. 17:30:20 Fishlord_Murloc: ^^ 17:30:38 (I didn't read the whole conversation, so maybe someone else already corrected you) 17:31:44 Fishlord_Murloc: anyway, a hacky way to write a macro that is limited to places where definitions are allowed is to define a dummy variable to the expression you want. 17:32:20 if the dummy variable name is introduced by the macro, then it's guaranteed not to collide with anything else. 17:32:37 (assuming you use modern hygienic macros) 17:33:32 actually, to avoid holding a reference to the value returned by your expression, it's a good idea to make sure that #f is assigned to the dummy varaible. 17:34:53 so expand to something like (define dummy (begin #f)) 17:36:20 nisstyre [~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre] has joined #scheme 17:40:02 mark_weaver, can you give me a more concrete example. 17:40:02 What would (shadow xs (cons x xs)) have to rewrite to? 17:41:49 well, I can't think of a way to "shadow" xs with a new binding, without using 'let'. but you could 'set!' xs to (cons x xs) like this: 17:42:15 (define dummy (begin (set! xs (cons x xs)) #f)) 17:42:49 if the macro expands into that, then 'dummy' would be guaranteed not to collide with anything else, and you'd get an error if it wasn't in a context that allowed definitions. 17:43:06 mark_weaver, well, if you do that and you do (shadow + 3) for instance you actually permaently rebind + 17:43:13 rather than only for the lexical extent of the scope. 17:43:16 however, 'shadow' is not a good name for this macro, because it suggests that you're creating a new binding that shadows the other one, whereas really what you're doing is mutating the existing variable. 17:43:40 No, I do want to shadow. 17:43:49 The lexical extent should be the function scope 17:43:51 just like that of define. 17:44:03 If the binding exists in the outer scope it should not be mutated. 17:44:24 well, the problem is that as soon as 'xs' is in the list of internal definitions, now you can no longer access the outer 'xs'. 17:44:49 Well, let* does pretty much exactly the thing which I want 17:44:50 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 17:44:52 I think what you want cannot be done. You need to use 'let'. 17:45:10 ('let*' expands into nested 'let's) 17:45:56 So I suppose what I want is be able to have (shadow ) rewrite to (let (( )) ) 17:45:56 Yeah, I know. 17:45:56 But apparently macro expansion cannot grab the form that lies next to it. 17:46:14 no, it cannot. 17:46:33 anyway, you need more than just the form next to it. you need all the forms to the right of it. 17:46:41 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-176-198.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 17:46:54 Yeah, that's true. 17:47:04 I guess the only way to do it is to rework lambda. 17:47:10 and even that wouldn't be enough. 17:47:11 Not sure if that's possible. 17:47:38 -!- foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 17:47:45 because presumably what you really want is to filter out all the non-definitions that follow, and those would go within the 'let'. but the definitions that follow probably want to be on the same level. 17:47:57 it's a mess, really. 17:48:03 If they go into let that doesn't matter. 17:48:11 Because the remaining contents of the function are inside the let 17:48:18 So they can access those definitions still 17:48:20 well, I think it does matter, if you want the definitions to be mutually recursive. 17:48:55 which prople generally want. lots of scheme code is written based on the assumption that internal definitions can be mutually recursive. 17:48:58 If you place a shadow between two defines I guess that would break yeah. 17:49:45 Hmm 17:49:48 sorry, what you're asking for is, I think, fundamentally at odds with the design of scheme's mutually recursive internal definitions. 17:49:54 how about you first define a variable and then set it? 17:50:23 (begin (define xs #f) (set! xs (cons x xs)) 17:50:27 that 'xs' is *supposed* to refer to the 'xs' that's being bound in the same set of internal definitions. that's intentional. and you want an exception to that. 17:50:28 oh wait, then th eset grabs #f 17:50:48 Well, what I'm asking is simply a different way to write let* 17:51:46 foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 17:52:03 well, you can write a macro that expands into 'let*', but then you need to include the expression as one of the operands to your macro. 17:52:03 (begin (define dummy xs) (define xs #f) (set! xs (cons x dummy))) maybe? 17:52:21 Yeah, I know, that's what I want to avoid because it makes it harder to add new shadows 17:52:37 no, because the first 'xs' in (define dummy xs) still refers to the 'xs' that's defined in that inner scope. 17:53:24 rudybot: eval (define (f x . xs) (begin (define dummy xs) (define xs #f) (set! xs (cons x dummy))) xs) (f 1 2 3) 17:53:24 Fishlord_Murloc: ; Value: '(1 . #) 17:53:26 Yap 17:53:27 I have to go afk for a while 17:59:51 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 18:09:05 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 18:12:21 -!- zacts [~zacts@unaffiliated/zacts] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 18:13:41 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 18:14:47 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 18:20:41 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: jhao] 18:36:51 -!- wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 18:38:44 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 18:44:22 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 18:56:05 Rodya_ [~trav@c-69-242-48-55.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 19:04:56 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:13:10 -!- cantstanya [~hello@unaffiliated/cantstanya] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 19:14:00 -!- ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 19:14:24 ezio [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #scheme 19:14:24 -!- ezio [~ezio@CPE0011d8ed356c-CM78cd8ecce905.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Changing host] 19:14:24 ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has joined #scheme 19:20:30 pecg [~pecg@190.92.53.208] has joined #scheme 19:20:34 -!- pecg [~pecg@190.92.53.208] has quit [Changing host] 19:20:34 pecg [~pecg@unaffiliated/pecg] has joined #scheme 19:21:18 elly, is there a way in R6RS modules to shadow an import 19:21:35 Like, say I wanted to have a library that exports my own lambda with shadow. 19:21:37 -!- pecg [~pecg@unaffiliated/pecg] has quit [Client Quit] 19:21:58 Or do I then have to do (import (except (rnrs (6) lambda)) to make it work? 19:25:51 wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #scheme 19:26:31 pecg [~pecg@unaffiliated/pecg] has joined #scheme 19:27:22 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 19:27:44 -!- ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 19:30:22 -!- pecg [~pecg@unaffiliated/pecg] has quit [Client Quit] 19:31:29 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 19:31:58 -!- jewel [~jewel@105-237-68-160.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:34:18 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-176-198.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 19:36:57 -!- mrowe_away [~mrowe@markab.mojain.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 19:37:25 -!- stamourv [~user@racket/stamourv] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:38:20 mrowe_away [~mrowe@markab.mojain.net] has joined #scheme 19:39:59 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: jhao] 19:44:34 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 19:45:03 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 19:45:14 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 19:46:04 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit] 19:46:56 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 19:47:14 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit] 19:48:20 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 19:49:00 -!- jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit] 19:49:24 jhao [~junhao@pool-72-76-190-214.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #scheme 19:49:42 Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-182-76.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has joined #scheme 19:54:57 I don't know, sorry 19:56:21 civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has joined #scheme 20:02:34 -!- foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 20:04:58 foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 20:07:24 -!- Belaf [~campedel@net-93-147-182-76.cust.dsl.teletu.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 20:12:44 -!- gravicappa [~gravicapp@ppp91-77-184-8.pppoe.mtu-net.ru] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:22:39 -!- foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 20:25:00 -!- Rodya_ [~trav@c-69-242-48-55.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 20:27:55 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 20:29:22 -!- theseb [~cs@74.194.237.26] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 20:29:26 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 20:30:25 -!- Fishlord_Murloc [~nevzets@unaffiliated/nevzets] has left #scheme 20:35:28 -!- tiksa [~tiksa@gateway/tor-sasl/tiksa] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:35:41 tiksa_ [~tiksa@gateway/tor-sasl/tiksa] has joined #scheme 20:38:13 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 20:39:21 Rodya_ [~trav@c-69-242-48-55.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #scheme 20:45:44 -!- tiksa_ is now known as tiksa 20:51:52 foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #scheme 20:53:21 -!- BossKonaSegwaY [~Michael@d60-65-147-223.col.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:55:44 BossKonaSegwaY [~Michael@d60-65-147-223.col.wideopenwest.com] has joined #scheme 20:58:53 -!- Khisanth [~Khisanth@50.14.244.111] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 21:10:55 hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #scheme 21:12:43 -!- tenq|away is now known as tenq 21:13:12 Khisanth [~Khisanth@50.14.244.111] has joined #scheme 21:24:35 przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 21:24:36 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:25:18 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 21:25:42 -!- cross [~cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 21:26:12 cross [~cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net] has joined #scheme 21:26:13 -!- cross [~cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net] has quit [Client Quit] 21:27:11 cross [~cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net] has joined #scheme 21:27:31 -!- cross [~cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net] has quit [Client Quit] 21:27:33 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:29:23 cross [~cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net] has joined #scheme 21:29:43 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 21:36:38 ezio [~ezio@unaffiliated/ezio] has joined #scheme 21:37:21 juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has joined #scheme 21:42:14 -!- juxovec [~juxovec@31.4.243.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 21:42:18 -!- omefire1 [~omefire@c-50-159-45-177.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:42:37 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 21:45:45 -!- hiroakip [~hiroaki@77-20-51-63-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 21:55:50 -!- pierpa [~user@95.236.58.43] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 21:56:44 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 22:00:14 -!- wingo [~wingo@cha74-2-88-160-190-192.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 22:05:28 -!- foeniks [~fevon@dslb-188-099-224-149.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] 22:05:59 -!- rszeno [~rszeno@79.114.35.17] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 22:09:05 przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 22:14:06 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 22:21:50 -!- add^_ [~user@m5-241-186-97.cust.tele2.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:35:55 -!- taylanub [tub@p4FD9179E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Disconnected by services] 22:36:21 taylanub [tub@p4FD91CDB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 22:44:03 -!- Rodya_ [~trav@c-69-242-48-55.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:48:45 dzhus [~dzhus@95-31-27-234.broadband.corbina.ru] has joined #scheme 22:50:50 langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has joined #scheme 22:50:59 CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has joined #scheme 22:51:02 -!- CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has quit [Client Quit] 22:51:37 LeoNerd [leo@2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:fe96:20e8] has joined #scheme 22:55:16 -!- civodul [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/civodul] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 23:03:01 -!- langmartin [~langmarti@host-68-169-154-130.WISOLT2.epbfi.com] has quit [Quit: sleep] 23:07:27 -!- dzhus [~dzhus@95-31-27-234.broadband.corbina.ru] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 23:09:48 przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 23:15:14 -!- przl [~przlrkt@p57922519.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 23:18:37 CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has joined #scheme 23:23:29 -!- CADD_ [~CADD@12.227.104.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 23:40:11 -!- tenq is now known as tenq|away 23:53:00 araujo [~araujo@190.73.46.113] has joined #scheme 23:53:00 -!- araujo [~araujo@190.73.46.113] has quit [Changing host] 23:53:00 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme 23:53:17 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:56:06 ASau` [~user@p54AFF70F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #scheme 23:58:16 -!- tiksa [~tiksa@gateway/tor-sasl/tiksa] has quit [Quit: peace] 23:59:18 jao [~jao@21.Red-79-153-49.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #scheme 23:59:19 -!- ASau [~user@p54AFE507.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out] 23:59:21 -!- jao [~jao@21.Red-79-153-49.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Changing host] 23:59:21 jao [~jao@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has joined #scheme