00:12 (join) zenlunatic
00:45 (join) jeapostrophe
00:50 (join) neilv
01:41 (quit) neilv: Quit: Leaving
01:46 (quit) jeapostrophe: Quit: jeapostrophe
01:50 (quit) mheld: Quit: mheld
02:06 (join) jeapostrophe
02:06 (quit) jeapostrophe: Client Quit
02:47 (join) MayDaniel
03:01 (join) aLeSD
03:01 aLeSD: hi all
03:01 aLeSD: merry Christmass
03:01 aLeSD: hi Lajla
04:12 (quit) jonrafkind: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
04:19 aLeSD: I got an error : expected procedure
04:19 aLeSD: and given #void
04:19 aLeSD: what does it mean ?
04:28 Lajla: aLeSD, can you give me your code?
04:28 aLeSD: Lajla, I resolved it
04:28 aLeSD: with (begin
04:28 Lajla: Ahhh
04:28 aLeSD: could u explain me ?
04:28 Lajla: aLeSD, yeah (x y z) is not a sequencer like in C { ... } is.
04:29 Lajla: (x y z) is like x(y, z) in C.
04:29 Lajla: It performs a function call with x as the function, and y and z as arguments.
04:29 aLeSD: yeah
04:29 Lajla: But the difference is that x can be an arbitrarily complex expression.
04:29 Lajla: Just like y and z.
04:29 aLeSD: but I coded (x (y z))
04:29 Lajla: Ahhh
04:29 Lajla: Well, then it starts to call y with z as argument.
04:30 Lajla: Is like x(y(z))
04:30 aLeSD: mmm
04:30 Lajla: In C
04:30 aLeSD: (x ((y) (z)))
04:30 Lajla: THen it tries to call y and z with no arguments.
04:30 Lajla: Like x(y(),z()) in C
04:30 aLeSD: ah
04:30 aLeSD: I have scheme
04:30 aLeSD: hate
04:31 aLeSD: now I have a math problem
04:31 aLeSD: I will resolve it with scilab
04:32 Lajla: Hating scheme is bad.
04:32 Lajla: Because it is the single most awesoe language on the planet.
04:32 Lajla: aLeSD, the reason behind the weird syntax by the way is that shceme is homo-iconic.
04:32 Lajla: There is a close correspondance between code and data.
04:32 aLeSD: ehm ?
04:32 Lajla: (x y z) is also a list.
04:32 Lajla: Basically, it's a list of three symbols.
04:32 Lajla: Which is considered as a program.
04:33 Lajla: (+ 1 2 3) is when considered as data, a list of a symbol and three numbers.
04:33 Lajla: And when considered as a simple program, a program that sums three numbers and prints that output.
04:46 Lajla: aLeSD, but another reason is that the name of a function needn't be a function call and can be an arbitrarily complex expression.
04:46 Lajla: Like, that (square-or-duble "square") funcion I had last time.
04:46 Lajla: You can do ((square-or-double "square") 1 2)
04:46 Lajla: Which then squares it.
04:47 aLeSD: ok
04:51 aLeSD: I have a prob
04:52 aLeSD: (translate (vector (* r (sin(* vel (time)))) (* r (cos(* vel (time)))) 0 ) )
04:52 aLeSD: it isn't a circle
04:52 aLeSD: is it strange ?
05:20 (quit) martinhex: Remote host closed the connection
05:40 (quit) aLeSD: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
06:00 (quit) MayDaniel: Read error: Connection reset by peer
06:30 (quit) abbe: Remote host closed the connection
06:30 (join) abbe
06:30 (quit) abbe: Changing host
06:30 (join) abbe
06:58 (quit) abbe: Ping timeout: 260 seconds
07:03 (join) abbe
07:03 (quit) abbe: Changing host
07:03 (join) abbe
07:30 (join) aLeSD
07:31 aLeSD: how could i give a variable a value ?
07:31 (join) MayDaniel
07:31 aLeSD: something like : var = sum(4,5); (c style)
07:32 Lajla: aLeSD, define
07:33 Lajla: (define var (+ 4 5))
07:33 aLeSD: ok
07:33 Lajla: Like I said before, (define (f x) ...) is the same as (define f (lambda (x) ...))
07:33 aLeSD: I think that my problem is the delay that I have between the two time I run (time) function
07:33 Lajla: Functions are simply stored in variables like any other value.
07:33 Lajla: aLeSD, I meant to ask you, what is that thing suppoed to do.
07:34 aLeSD: I am creating sever sphere
07:35 aLeSD: that move following the sin cos coordinates
07:35 Lajla: Ahhh
07:35 Lajla: You are making a parametric aequation.
07:35 Lajla: So like
07:35 Lajla: time is a variable?
07:35 Lajla: Because (time) calls a unction here, not sure if you want that.
07:36 aLeSD: the arg of sin cos is the time
07:36 Lajla: But
07:36 aLeSD: and to make them go to different velocity I am (* n (time))
07:36 Lajla: If you want to make them the same.
07:36 aLeSD: but the trajectory is not a circle
07:36 Lajla: You can use let.
07:36 Lajla: Like (let ((the-time (time))) ...)
07:36 aLeSD: it doesn't work
07:36 Lajla: And place your code in ...
07:36 Lajla: And use the-time instead of (time) in that.
07:36 Lajla: Let creates a local block.
07:36 aLeSD: mmm
07:37 Lajla: Like, if you use (let ((x 3) (y 4)) (+ x y))
07:37 Lajla: You have created two local variables, x and y, that only last up to the end of the block.
07:37 aLeSD: I have a math prob
07:37 aLeSD: jus a sec
07:37 Lajla: Essentially like in a function, except you don't call a function.
07:38 aLeSD: understand
07:39 aLeSD: yes... but my problem is different now
07:39 aLeSD: I am doing like
07:39 Lajla: Hmm, go on.
07:39 (quit) MayDaniel: Read error: Connection reset by peer
07:40 aLeSD: (translate (vector (* r (sin (* vel (time))) (* r (cos (* vel (time))) 0 ))
07:41 aLeSD: (draw-sphere)
07:41 aLeSD: and I run it continuously
07:41 aLeSD: but the trajectory is not circular
07:42 aLeSD: I understood
07:44 aLeSD: ok it works
07:44 aLeSD: my faULT
07:44 aLeSD: Lajla, but I have a doubt
07:45 aLeSD: #f::52: define: not allowed in an expression context in: (define t time)
07:45 aLeSD: I had to remove the define and use (time) directly
07:45 Lajla: aLeSD, where had you put the define?
07:46 Lajla: aLeSD, can you use codepad.org to upload your code.
07:46 Lajla: It's pretty nice.
07:46 Lajla: http://codepad.org/ZfZaIojw
07:46 Lajla: Look, 99 bottles of beer for you.
07:47 aLeSD: the editor I am using (fluxus) doesn't support copy paste
07:47 Lajla: Really?
07:47 Lajla: THat is very awkward.
07:47 Lajla: You might want to write it in another editor and then output it.
07:48 Lajla: But aLeSD I guarantee you that Scheme is a very good language for writing such things once you realize how it works. It works quite different from C.
07:48 aLeSD: I have to use drscheme
07:48 aLeSD: wait
07:48 Lajla: But Scheme has been used for these things a lot, like a lot of 3D films have used Scheme to program facial expressions and those things, because it's very good for that.
07:50 aLeSD: Lajla, when I put require
07:50 aLeSD: I get:  fluxus-017/drflux: standard-module-name-resolver: collection not found: "fluxus-017" in any of: (#<path:/home/alex/.plt-scheme/4.2.4/collects> #<path:/usr/lib/plt/collects>)
07:50 Lajla: Ahhh
07:50 Lajla: Well, it means that it's apparently not in the folder.
07:50 aLeSD: and I have /usr/local/lib/fluxus-017/drflux.ss
07:51 Lajla: aLeSD, can you paste your code?
07:52 aLeSD: #lang scheme
07:52 aLeSD: (require fluxus-017/drflux)
07:52 aLeSD: it is all
07:55 aLeSD: Lajla, http://codepad.org/mbb4pUl7
07:58 (join) mceier
07:58 aLeSD: how can I give the interpreter all the path to the module ?
08:01 Lajla: Hmm
08:01 Lajla: I suppose you want to put fluxus in /home/ale .... / collects
08:01 Lajla: That is how most people do it I guess.
08:01 Lajla: It's handier to keep that together
08:02 Lajla: Also, you might want to ue #lang racket
08:02 aLeSD: but only the ss file ?
08:02 Lajla: Well, all of it.
08:02 Lajla: I don't know what fluxus is as I said. =P
08:02 aLeSD: I am using the plt-scheme version
08:02 Lajla: Oh.
08:02 Lajla: You might want to update to the latest versoin then.
08:02 Lajla: But aLeSD your indentation tyle is a bit off.
08:03 Lajla: You generally want to indent it like I did in my example.
08:03 Lajla: Not use ) below each other.
08:03 Lajla: Because there are going to be a lot of them.
08:03 Lajla: http://codepad.org/6QMIMFIF like this
08:14 aLeSD: ok
08:19 Lajla: aLeSD, is it working if you replaced the paths?
08:21 aLeSD: I copied the files in my home
08:21 aLeSD: and it works
08:21 aLeSD: but (time) function is not avaible in drscheme
08:21 aLeSD: available
08:22 Lajla: Hmm
08:22 Lajla: what is it supposed to do?
08:22 Lajla: Like I said, I didn't know it.
08:22 aLeSD: time: bad syntax in: (time)
08:22 aLeSD: do u know a function that give me the time ?
08:22 Lajla: Ohh
08:22 Lajla: You mean the current unix time?
08:23 Lajla: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/time.html there are a lot
08:23 aLeSD: it gives you a number that is the seconds from when the program starts
08:24 Lajla: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/time.html#(def._((quote._~23~25kernel)._current-milliseconds))
08:24 (join) jeapostrophe
08:28 aLeSD: ok it works
08:29 aLeSD: Lajla,  thanks
08:31 (join) MayDaniel
08:31 Lajla: aLeSD, I live to serve.
08:33 (quit) aLeSD: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
08:48 (nick) jeapostrophe -> jay-mccarthy
08:49 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Quit: jay-mccarthy
08:49 (join) jay-mccarthy
08:59 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Quit: jay-mccarthy
09:02 MindFrog: hey there can anyone tell me how to break a dolist loop?
09:03 MindFrog: (break) gives me undefined identifier error
09:12 Lajla: MindFrog, c-c-c-c-ccCONTINUATIONS
09:13 MindFrog: sorry?
09:14 Lajla: MindFrog, continuations, never heard of them?
09:14 MindFrog: ergh, I'm afraid not ^^
09:14 Lajla: MindFrog, can you use pastebin or codepad to give me the relevant part of the code.
09:15 (join) jay-mccarthy
09:15 Lajla: In the meanwhile: http://community.schemewiki.org/?call-with-current-continuation marvel at their astounding brilliancy yet nigh complete uselessness.
09:15 MindFrog: http://pastebin.com/eAzfJc0f
09:15 MindFrog: after this:
09:15 MindFrog: (set! res #f)))
09:15 MindFrog: I wanted to stop the loop
09:15 MindFrog: because if res is ever set to #f, it's not worth to keep looping
09:19 Lajla: MindFrog, http://pastebin.com/cjychAek
09:19 Lajla: I have taken the liberty to significantly re-write your code.
09:19 Lajla: But basically.
09:19 Lajla: धीOr actually, I goofed. =(
09:20 Lajla: Pardon.
09:20 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Quit: jay-mccarthy
09:20 Lajla: But ehh, basically, I added a return thingy to it with continuations.
09:20 Lajla: So whenever (return x) is encountered in the loop.
09:20 Lajla: It stops the loop, and the entire part from (call/cc (lambda (return) ...) up evaluates to x.
09:20 Lajla: And I goofed because in my version it returns fromt he first iteration on.
09:21 MindFrog: hummmmmmmmmm
09:22 MindFrog: ohh I see
09:22 MindFrog: ah ok
09:22 MindFrog: thx Lajla
09:23 MindFrog: jesus, why isn't there a break command? lol
09:23 Lajla: http://pastebin.com/useifY0b
09:23 Lajla: MindFrog, maybe there is.
09:23 Lajla: But the point is, this is Scheme.
09:23 Lajla: A language built on not adding feature above feature, but removing the restrictions that make those features necessary.
09:23 Lajla: Basically
09:24 Lajla: continuations are your building block to create gotos, returns, brekas, contnuatue statements et cetera from.
09:24 Lajla: Continuations are the generalization of all of those.
09:24 MindFrog: k, I'm reading the link you sent
09:24 MindFrog: thx a lot!
09:24 Lajla: So scheme does not natively have all those things, but allows you to define them yourself using continuations.
09:27 Lajla: MindFrog, hold on, I'm making something for you right now.
09:39 (quit) mceier: Quit: leaving
09:44 Lajla: MindFrog: http://codepad.org/2Ud7mPR4
09:44 (quit) MayDaniel: 
09:44 Lajla: Basically, you now have (do-each (k '(0 1 2 3 4 5))) some-code)
09:45 Lajla: Where some-code is the code you loop over, and in that k, is just bound to each member of the list.
09:45 Lajla: Also, you can loop over two lists at once.
09:45 Lajla: and in that, you can return by using the return statement.
09:45 Lajla: Or you can give it a name yourself like I did in the first.
09:45 Lajla: You can also return the return statement by the way. =P
09:45 Lajla: (return return) is acceptable, but weird
09:53 (join) mheld
09:58 (join) jay-mccarthy
10:01 Lajla: MindFrog, no idea if you left, but this is la grande versione: http://codepad.org/9N5ZpPkU
10:01 Lajla: It also has a counter
10:01 (join) MayDaniel
10:06 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Quit: jay-mccarthy
10:12 MindFrog: sorry Lajla
10:13 MindFrog: great job, thank you very much
10:13 MindFrog: works like a charm
10:14 MindFrog: you guys rock, great channel ^^ ;)
10:14 Lajla: MindFrog, some people would say though that it is 'un scheme' to choose identifiers for people.
10:14 Lajla: And people should be able to choose their own.
10:14 Lajla: And pick the name of their own return statements.
10:14 MindFrog: humm, is it?
10:14 Lajla: Yeah.
10:14 MindFrog: I'm new to scheme
10:15 Lajla: This is why for instance in 'named lets', you choose the name of your recursion point.
10:15 MindFrog: it's too different from other languages, a bit tricky sometimes but I like it
10:15 Lajla: Like (let recur ((x 10)) (if (zero? x) #t (recur (- k 1))))
10:15 MindFrog: ah yep yep
10:15 Lajla: You choose the name of your recursion point basically.
10:16 Lajla: Also in many scheme OO systems, they let you choose the name of your 'this' at some point.
10:16 Lajla: But my syntax generally lets you choose the name, but if you don't fill it in, it assumes a default one.
10:16 Lajla: Also, it's important with nested do-each loops.
10:16 Lajla: Like, if you nest a do-each loop inside another one.
10:16 Lajla: What does 'return' then rever to?
10:17 Lajla: If you can name them yourself, you can give each do-each loop a different one like outer-return and inner-return, so that the inner one can in fact return to the outer one directly.
10:17 MindFrog: hmmmmmm
10:17 Lajla: Also, some purists would say that using set! without reaaaally having to warrants execution. :')
10:18 MindFrog: a return to another return
10:19 Lajla: Yeah
10:19 Lajla: like, you can do the same thing with functions
10:19 Lajla: give them a return statement.
10:19 Lajla: But you can have inner functions in scheme.
10:19 Lajla: If you can name the return 'statement'
10:19 MindFrog: the closest thing I've done is to make a function that returns another function
10:19 Lajla: You can let an inner function directly return to the outer one.
10:22 Lajla: MindFrog: http://codepad.org/xtcJzhD1
10:24 MindFrog: hm I see
10:24 MindFrog: never had heard about that
10:25 Lajla: MindFrog, about continuations?
10:25 MindFrog: yeah
10:25 Lajla: Hmm
10:25 Lajla: some would argue that continuations were the start of scheme development.
10:25 MindFrog: I'm still reading on wikipedia abou tit, seems such a powerfull tool
10:25 Lajla: Extremely.
10:25 MindFrog: * about it
10:25 Lajla: But, continuations are considered harmful.
10:25 MindFrog: huh, why?
10:26 Lajla: They are more powerful thatn gotos, and subsequently a way to completely obfuscate and destroy the maintainability of code if used unwisely.
10:26 Lajla: THerefore they are best kept abstracted inside micros.
10:26 Lajla: It's very difficult for a human being to reason about them.
10:26 Lajla: Like continuations being passed themselves.
10:26 Lajla: Like, say you have a function which names its return continuation simply ret.
10:27 Lajla: And you do (ret ret) in it.
10:27 Lajla: THat function then returns its own continuation
10:27 Lajla: And you have it as an object outside the function.
10:27 Lajla: Pretty difficult to reason about how that behaves
10:27 Lajla: But basically, say you have that function, and you do (define foo (function-that-returns its own continuation))
10:28 MindFrog: O.o
10:28 Lajla: If you then pass foo an argument, that argument then continues at this point, so if you pass it 3
10:28 Lajla: The program continues at that point, as if it were if foo was defined as 3.
10:28 MindFrog: ok this is confusing
10:29 Lajla: THat is why they are considered harmful. =P
10:32 MindFrog: lol, right..
10:32 MindFrog: so basically, it's a nightmare for beginners like me
10:32 MindFrog: hehe
10:32 Lajla: But basically all your fancy control structure stuff like coroutines, exceptions, prolog-style backtracing can be implemented on top of continuations.
10:33 Lajla: Well, as a generla rule, you want a machine to generate continuation-based code, it's very hard for human beings.
10:33 Lajla: So it's usually abstracted away in macros.
10:34 Lajla: You can also by the way define loops in terms of them, instead of using tail recursion.
10:38 MindFrog: well
10:38 MindFrog: tail recursion simulates a loop, right?
10:39 Lajla: Or the reverse, yeah.
10:39 Lajla: But, tail recurson is closely related to continuations.
10:39 Lajla: घलIn fact a call is a tail-call if and only if its continuation is the same as that of the calling function.
10:41 MindFrog: humm
10:43 (quit) MayDaniel: Read error: Connection reset by peer
10:48 cky: Continuations are awesomesauce.
10:51 MindFrog: hehe
11:07 (join) jonrafkind
11:10 Lajla: jonrafkind,
11:11 jonrafkind: yes
11:11 Lajla: continuations are fun, right?
11:11 Lajla: Asnwered before asked.
11:11 Lajla: soo, MindFrog they are.
11:11 Lajla: So awesome in fact
11:11 Lajla: that he answered before I asked.
11:11 Lajla: Which by the way
11:11 bremner: continuations are scheme's way of saying you really didn't want to do that :)
11:11 Lajla: can be implemented with continuations
11:11 jonrafkind: continuations are fun like rubbing alcohol is fun
11:11 Lajla: Continuations are like that time machine box from pirmer.
11:11 MindFrog: haha
11:11 Lajla: I once made a graph explaining them via that time travel box.
11:12 MindFrog: .:16:11:23:. <Lajla> that he answered before I asked.
11:12 MindFrog: .:16:11:27:. <Lajla> Which by the way
11:12 MindFrog: .:16:11:30:. <Lajla> can be implemented with continuations
11:12 MindFrog: lol
11:12 Lajla: It is true.
11:12 jonrafkind: you have a problem and you think you can solve it with continuations. now you have two problems
11:12 MindFrog: oh jesus jonrafkind
11:12 MindFrog: I understood that it's confusing but with practice the problem will be solved
11:12 Lajla: Jonrafkind is a cynical man.
11:13 Lajla: No, not really.
11:13 jonrafkind: see how many hours/weeks/years it takes you to decipher this ((call/cc call/cc) (call/cc call/cc))
11:13 MindFrog: huh
11:14 Lajla: Ahahaha
11:14 Lajla: MindFrog, this is why they are considered harmful.
11:14 MindFrog: cool stuff
11:14 MindFrog: xD
11:49 (join) aLeSD
12:07 Lajla: aLeSD, yo.
12:07 Lajla: you mised some great stuff.
12:08 (join) mceier
12:11 aLeSD: Lajla, what hppend ?
12:11 Lajla: aLeSD, we were talking about continuations.
12:11 Lajla: The coolest part of scheme.
12:11 aLeSD: ehm
12:11 Lajla: Isn't that right, jonrafkind?
12:11 jonrafkind: sure
12:12 aLeSD: I have some problem to understand what continuation is
12:12 aLeSD: could u give a example ?
12:13 Lajla: aLeSD, basically, the continuation is the generalisaiton of the return statement, the break statement, the goto, the loop, the exception, and all that.
12:13 Lajla: It's sort of like an inverted call-stack.
12:14 Lajla: It tells you what is going to happen after some function call, not what happened before it.
12:14 Lajla: aLeSD, but like ehh
12:14 Lajla: say you have a return statement in C.
12:14 Lajla: Say that is not a statement, but a function
12:15 Lajla: A function that accepts an argument, and with that argument simulates the exact thing that would have happened if that function had returned that argument.
12:15 Lajla: THat's basically the continuation of that function, which is of course different for each different call to that function
12:15 aLeSD: ok I need 12 hours to think about
12:16 aLeSD: with beers ... of course
12:16 Lajla: Aaha
12:16 Lajla: It is not unusual.
12:17 Lajla: aLeSD: http://codepad.org/xVXdqnDG
12:18 (quit) aLeSD: Quit: Leaving
12:23 (quit) mheld: Quit: mheld
12:34 (join) mheld
12:50 MindFrog: Lajla do you know who is Fill?
12:51 MindFrog: that's the nick I use on other irc networks but in here it's already registered :(
12:54 (join) dnolen
12:55 Lajla: MindFrog, no, never met him or her.
12:55 Lajla: Small chance too.
12:55 MindFrog: humm, so maybe it's me
12:55 MindFrog: LOL
12:56 MindFrog: I don't remember
12:56 Lajla: It's a common word
12:56 MindFrog: but I had already connected to freenode before, and if I'm not wrong, I used the nick Fill, just don't know if I registered it
12:56 MindFrog: how long does a nick take to expire?
12:57 MindFrog: hum sorry this is a bit offtopic
12:58 offby1 shot a nick, just to watch it expire
12:58 MindFrog: ^^
12:58 Lajla: Oh well, I still have not been banned myself for repeated offtopicity, though I feel it coming.
12:59 MindFrog: lol, nah
12:59 MindFrog: you're such a great helper
13:00 Lajla: I also have a tendency to defend people who say that Scheme has little industry potential.
13:00 Lajla: Don't ever say that here by the way.
13:00 Lajla: You will acquire the wrath of the gods, you will set in motion the apolocolypse.
13:01 MindFrog: hehe
13:01 offby1: offtopicosity
13:01 Lajla: offtopicity should be a word.
13:02 MindFrog: honestly I didn't know scheme existed before going to university this year. I'm in computers engineering, 1st year, and the language we learn on the first 6 months is scheme
13:02 MindFrog: but, indeed, it's cool, I like it
13:02 Lajla: That is because many theoretical foundations of many languages originated from, or were first investigated using, scheme.
13:02 Lajla: Also, a scheme program is pretty close to a description of the flow of computation in data form.
13:02 MindFrog: sounds nice
13:03 MindFrog: I'm enjoying it
13:03 Lajla: That still does not excuse you from ever mentioning its lack of industry potential.
13:03 MindFrog: and now I'll learn about continuations :P
13:03 Lajla: Heed my words.
13:03 Lajla: Yeah
13:03 MindFrog: I agree
13:03 Lajla: continuations were also used in a lot of stuff.
13:09 (quit) mheld: Quit: mheld
13:15 offby1: MindFrog: it's not a particularly popular language.
13:15 MindFrog: true
13:16 offby1: MindFrog: http://www.paulgraham.com/popular.html :-)
13:17 Lajla: offby1, depends in what area, it has always been pretty popular with people with no sense of practicality trying to research how to apply continuations to natural language semantic formalisms.
13:17 Lajla: But never really with videogame developers.
13:17 MindFrog: hah
13:17 MindFrog: nice article offby1
13:17 Lajla: But interestingly enough, scheme has been used a lot in 3D film development
13:18 Lajla: Like, facial expression simulation and all that
13:18 MindFrog: is that your website?
13:19 Lajla: Isn't the official scripting language of GNU nowadays some form of scheme that runs on a orrible implementation?
13:20 Lajla: Oh lol, Jonrafkind, you'll love this article.
13:20 MindFrog: hummmm
13:20 MindFrog: I think the gimp uses some scheme scripts
13:21 Lajla: yeah, that is Guille.
13:21 Lajla: THe point about rms is that he lacks any notion of empathy.
13:21 Lajla: And is really like 'What is good for me is good for everyone'
13:21 Lajla: And he likes his lisp.
13:22 Lajla: Even though, of course, lisp is only meant for the most enlightened and brilliant spawns of man
13:23 offby1: MindFrog: heh, no, I am not Paul Graham.
13:23 Lajla: =(
13:23 Lajla: A lot of that article is outdated or nonsensical though.
13:23 offby1: Lajla: I know, it's a disappointment to me, too
13:23 Lajla: I especially fell over the use of 'strongly typed' and 'type declrations'
13:28 offby1 never tires of reading Paul Graham
13:28 offby1: "Perl ... was not only designed for writing throwaway programs, but was pretty much a throwaway program itself."
13:29 Lajla: I write much funnier.
13:30 Lajla: "I  for one hate with a passion that new misodendric hype of basically 1 em line spacing in papers. I’m still not really sure if they actually hit enter twice after every line or make some switch that does that automatically for each line, but as they use LaTeX I would not be surprised if they actually accomplished their treeslaughter by the former."
13:30 Lajla: See
13:30 Lajla: I write much funnier.
13:59 (join) mheld
13:59 (quit) Lajla: Ping timeout: 250 seconds
14:22 (quit) cinch: Quit: Leaving
14:28 (quit) mheld: Quit: mheld
14:30 (join) jao
14:30 (quit) jao: Changing host
14:30 (join) jao
14:42 (join) cinch
14:50 (quit) cinch: Read error: Operation timed out
14:52 offby1: if by "funny" you mean "eye-glazingly boring and also possibly schizoid", sure
14:52 offby1: oh, that comment wasn't filled with the Christmas spirit, now was it :-|
15:05 rapacity: the spirit of christmas is commercialism
15:14 (quit) parcs: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
15:16 (join) parcs
15:22 (join) jay-mccarthy
15:25 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Client Quit
15:51 (join) Lajla
15:53 (nick) MindFrog -> Fill
15:55 (join) jay-mccarthy
16:09 (join) MayDaniel
16:11 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Quit: jay-mccarthy
16:15 (join) jay-mccarthy
16:19 (quit) Fill: Quit: brb .•«UPP»•.
16:19 (join) Fill
16:20 Lajla: Does anyone know why values / call-with-values can't simply be replaced by saying that continuations generated by call/cc can accept multiple arguments?
16:20 Lajla: Or well, it removes the values.
16:20 (quit) Fill: Client Quit
16:20 Lajla: Not the call-with-values
16:20 (join) Fill
16:21 offby1: I seem to recall a long discussion on #scheme about that, but have no idea what points were raised or how it turned out
16:21 (quit) zenlunatic: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
16:21 Lajla: Well they banned me there for for inappropriate humour eh.
16:22 Lajla: But I've never really gotten the values part of call-by-values.
16:22 Lajla: What stops you from using (call/cc (lambda (cont) (cont x y z))) instead of that
16:23 offby1: *shrug*
16:23 Lajla: (define (values . xs) (call/cc (lambda (cont) (apply cont x y z))))
16:23 Lajla: offby1, oh come on.
16:23 offby1: here's what stops me: I never actually use call/cc for anything.
16:23 Lajla: Surely you mus know this.
16:23 Lajla: blasphemy.
16:23 offby1: Once in a blue moon I use let/ec
16:23 Lajla: Well.
16:24 Lajla: Okay, but assume 'a scheme' where continuations can have multiple values.
16:24 Lajla: So I just did (define (values . xs) (call/cc (lambda (k) (apply k xs))))
16:24 Lajla: And I abstracted it away from you.
16:24 Lajla: There has to be a reason why they just didn't say that continuations can accept multiple arguments.
16:27 Lajla: eli, you are usually the only guy around here with knowledge about this language who doesn't completely hate me, do you know this?
16:44 (quit) MayDaniel: Read error: Connection reset by peer
16:59 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Ping timeout: 255 seconds
17:02 (quit) tv|z: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
17:03 (join) tv|z
17:19 (join) aLeSD
17:19 aLeSD: Lajla, but u never sleep
17:21 Lajla: aLeSD, I had a power outage though, does that count?
17:21 Lajla: Also, I am in EU, no idea where you are.
17:21 aLeSD: EU also
17:22 Lajla: Ahhh
17:22 Lajla: Eastside, brotha.
17:22 Lajla: Of the atlantic at least
17:22 aLeSD: Italy
17:28 Quetzalcoatl_: rudybot: (define (_values . args) (let/cc cc (apply cc args)))
17:28 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: Done.
17:28 Quetzalcoatl_: rudybot: (call-with-values list (_values 'x 'y 'z))
17:28 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: error: context expected 1 value, received 3 values: x y z
17:29 Quetzalcoatl_: (call-with-values (lambda () (_values 'x 'y 'z)) list)
17:30 Quetzalcoatl_: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (_values 'x 'y 'z)) list)
17:30 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value: (x y z)
17:30 Lajla: Quetzalcoatl_, well, yeah, this is because call/cc only returns single argument procs.
17:30 Lajla: Ohhh, wait.
17:30 Lajla: I get the obstacle.
17:30 Lajla: call/cc of course has to know the arity when it creates it, which it cannot.
17:30 Quetzalcoatl_: call/cc creates a variable-arity continuation.
17:30 Lajla: Or wait.
17:30 Lajla: really?
17:30 Quetzalcoatl_: The more arguments you pass, the more values it generates.
17:31 Lajla: But like
17:31 Lajla: Ehh
17:31 Lajla: theoretically.
17:31 Quetzalcoatl_: Not theoretically-- that's the way it's implemented.
17:31 Lajla: (call-with-values list (call/cc (lambda (k) ...)))
17:31 Lajla: Shouldn't k in ... be bound to list?
17:31 Lajla: No, I was going to follow it up with omething.
17:32 Lajla: धीOr wait, I reverse them
17:32 Lajla: (call-with-values (call/cc (lambda (k) ...)) k)
17:32 Lajla: Ehh the last k is suppoesd to be list.
17:32 Lajla: But call-with-values basically calls its first argument with its second as continuation, right?
17:33 Lajla: So shouldn't k just be bound to the list function there?
17:33 Quetzalcoatl_: rudybot: (_values 'x 'y 'z)
17:33 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value: x
17:33 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value#2: y
17:33 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value#3: z
17:34 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (call/cc (lambda (k) (k 1 2 3)) list)
17:34 rudybot: Lajla: Not the call-with-values
17:35 offby1: rudybot: (apply values (build-list 20))
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: error: procedure build-list: expects 2 arguments, given 1: 20
17:35 offby1: rudybot: (apply values (build-list 20 values))
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: ; Value: 0
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: ; Value#2: 1
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: ; Value#3: 2
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: ; Value#4: 3
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: ; Value#5: 4
17:35 rudybot: *offby1: ; five values is enough for anybody; here's the rest in a list: (5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19)
17:35 Lajla: offby1, why doesn't he work we me?
17:35 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (call/cc (lambda (k) (k 1 2 3))) list)
17:35 rudybot: Lajla: your sandbox is ready
17:35 rudybot: Lajla: error: context expected 1 value, received 3 values: 1 2 3
17:35 Lajla: Ahh, there.
17:36 Lajla: Hmm
17:36 Lajla: rudybot: ((call-with-values (call/cc (lambda (k) k) list) 1 2 3)
17:36 rudybot: Lajla: error: eval:1:0: read: expected a `)' to close `('
17:36 Lajla: rudybot: ((call-with-values (call/cc (lambda (k) k)) list) 1 2 3)
17:36 rudybot: Lajla: error: context expected 1 value, received 0 values
17:37 (quit) aLeSD: Ping timeout: 264 seconds
17:39 Quetzalcoatl_: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (call/cc (lambda (k) k))) list)
17:39 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value: (#<continuation>)
17:39 Quetzalcoatl_: Too many lambdas. The let/cc macro is easier to read.
17:40 Lajla: Ohhh, yeah, hat was where I fucked up.
17:41 Lajla: rudybot: ((call-with-values (lambda () (let/cc k k)) list) 1 2 3)
17:41 rudybot: Lajla: error: procedure application: expected procedure, given: (#<continuation>); arguments were: 1 2 3
17:41 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (let/cc k (k 1 2 3))) list)
17:41 rudybot: Lajla: ; Value: (1 2 3)
17:41 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (let/cc k (k 1 2 3))) vector)
17:41 rudybot: Lajla: ; Value: #(1 2 3)
17:41 Lajla: Schweet
17:43 Lajla: Okay, so like, indeed with call-with-values, the current continuation extracted with call/cc is just bound to whatever procedure is given, right?
17:43 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (let/cc k (eqv? k vector)) vector)
17:43 rudybot: Lajla: error: eval:1:0: read: expected a `)' to close `('
17:43 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (let/cc k (eqv? k vector))) vector)
17:43 rudybot: Lajla: ; Value: #(#f)
17:43 Lajla: Guess not
17:44 Lajla: rudybot: (call-with-values (lambda () (let/cc k (eqv? vector vector))) vector)
17:44 rudybot: Lajla: ; Value: #(#t)
17:46 (join) mheld
17:47 Quetzalcoatl_: rudybot: (let/cc cc (cc 'multiple 'values 'with 'continuations))
17:47 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value: multiple
17:47 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value#2: values
17:47 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value#3: with
17:47 rudybot: Quetzalcoatl_: ; Value#4: continuations
17:48 Lajla: You don't say.
17:48 Lajla: THen I truly don't know what the use of this values is?
17:48 Lajla: At least, as a primitive.
17:49 Lajla: I always wondered why it couldn't be done as this, but it can apparently.
17:49 jonrafkind: a continuation is ridiculously heavy-weight compared to `values'
17:50 Lajla: rudybot: (+ 1 (let/cc k (k 1 2 3)) 2)
17:50 rudybot: Lajla: error: context expected 1 value, received 3 values: 1 2 3
17:50 Lajla: jonrafkind, hmm
17:50 Lajla: Ahh
17:50 Lajla: Racket doesn't use CPS does it?
17:51 jonrafkind: i dont think so
17:52 (join) MayDaniel
17:52 Lajla: And like, cps does remove this weight, right?
17:53 jonrafkind: yea
17:55 Lajla: Schweet.
17:56 Lajla: Maybe (most certainly) I am a total noob, but I am kind of scratching for a good reason to not use CPS.
18:20 (quit) MayDaniel: 
18:27 (join) cinch
19:10 (quit) dnolen: Quit: dnolen
19:15 (quit) mheld: Quit: mheld
19:16 (quit) cinch: Quit: Leaving
19:33 (join) clklein_
19:37 (join) fmu`
19:39 (quit) clklein: *.net *.split
19:39 (quit) fmu: *.net *.split
19:55 (quit) mceier: Quit: leaving
20:02 (join) mheld
20:02 (join) cinch
20:14 (join) aLeSD
21:16 (join) dnolen
21:21 (quit) aLeSD: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
21:39 (quit) dnolen: Quit: dnolen
21:49 (join) dnolen
22:02 (quit) dnolen: Quit: dnolen
22:04 (join) jay-mccarthy
22:36 (quit) jao: Ping timeout: 250 seconds
22:46 (quit) jay-mccarthy: Quit: jay-mccarthy
23:01 (quit) clklein_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
23:06 (join) clklein
23:20 (join) jay-mccarthy
23:24 (quit) parcs: Quit: WeeChat 0.3.3
23:27 (join) zenlunatic
23:30 (join) parcs