freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog

14:12:09 beach A list of integers is hardly an abstract type.

14:13:52 hectorhonn well.. technically its not very abstract :D

14:36:45 scymtym pfdietz: thank you for the idea. prototyping this revealed a few shortcomings in eclector: https://techfak.de/~jmoringe/bad-reader-conditionals.png

14:38:49 pfdietz 'todo' and 'later' were coming out as nil?

14:39:14 scymtym no, i explicitly added those to the rule

14:39:24 pfdietz Ah ok

14:40:20 scymtym the shortcomings were related to the fact that this reader client does not use host symbols or packages

15:00:13 SaganMan ** NICK Mysterion

16:20:41 jcowan beach: that definition doesn't seem to be particularly CL-centric; I think it could apply to almost any language with (dynamic) types.

16:31:43 verisimilitude That's effectively what I thought, as well.

16:39:14 beach ACTION doesn't know what is being referred to.

16:44:12 MoziM is Univac 1100 Lisp still relavent to modern lisps? www.frobenius.com/source.htm

16:45:16 beach No

16:47:22 grumble ** NICK \x01VERSION\x01

17:00:30 ggole "Interesting" source, with the manual namespacing and mixed brackets

17:09:43 pjb MoziM: however, Univac were nice computers. It would be fun to implement (or find) an emulator, and run this lisp.

17:10:49 pjb Also, the compiler is written in lisp, so you could easily write a driver to run it in CL…

17:10:55 pjb (with some reader macros ;-))

17:19:48 MoziM is this an accurate way to summarize the "LISP" way of thinking? still trying to get my head around it https://i.imgur.com/m2BmyGa.png

17:25:05 Mysterion ** NICK blackadder

17:41:45 jmercouris (cl-string-match:match-re "\:" "https://www.google.com") --> NIL

17:42:00 jmercouris should It not be matching? I'm escaping ":" with "\"

17:42:28 jmercouris cl-string-match uses pcre, just for reference

18:16:41 drmeister Hey folks - bordeaux-threads *default-special-bindings* is confusing me - in what thread are the forms supposed to be evaluated?

18:16:42 drmeister https://trac.common-lisp.net/bordeaux-threads/wiki/ApiDocumentation

18:17:08 drmeister It says in the documentation for *default-special-bindings*: "Forms are evaluated in the new thread or in the calling thread? Standard contents of this list: print/reader control, etc. Can borrow the Franz equivalent?"

18:17:16 drmeister What the heck kind of documentation is that?

18:19:53 drmeister It makes more sense to me to evaluate the forms in the parent thread because then bindings like ( ('*print-pretty* . *print-pretty*)) will get the value of the *print-pretty* binding of the parent. If you evaluate *print-pretty* in the child thread - then you will get the global value.

18:59:14 beach MoziM: No, that looks totally wrong. And we don't write it "LISP" anymore. We write it "Lisp".

19:00:23 beach MoziM: Common Lisp allows both assignments and sequences of forms (expressions to evaluate).

19:01:43 beach MoziM: And the "value of a symbol" thing is wrong. Common Lisp uses eager evaluation.

19:02:17 beach MoziM: And (A+B) isn't valid Common Lisp syntax.

19:03:15 beach MoziM: But if you do (SETQ X (+ A B)), then the addition is computed once and the result is stored as the value of X.

19:07:46 logicmoo ** NICK dmiles

19:11:27 jcowan interestingly, Univac Lisp is a Lisp-1; that seems to be a common change for people reinventing Lisp from scratch

19:14:17 pjb So, for who searched for a non-emacs editor, here is one, in univac lisp: http://www.frobenius.com/source.htm

19:14:30 pjb So, for who searched for a non-emacs editor, here is one, in univac lisp: http://www.frobenius.com/editor.htm

19:14:59 pjb jcowan: it's a simplification for the implementer…

19:19:49 jcowan indeed it iw

19:19:50 jcowan is

19:19:51 pjb tarball at ftp://ftp.informatimago.com/pub/lisp/univac-1100-lisp.tar.bz2

19:20:59 jcowan interestingly, it has a non-closed function constructor spelled LAMBDA, and an otherwise identical closure constructor spelled LAMDA (which is how it is spelled in Modern Greek)

19:21:07 jcowan so the "classical vs. modern" lambda

19:21:30 Bike ew.

19:34:54 phoe What is the function that does the inverse of REMOVE? I want to keep all the elements instead of removing them.

19:35:27 phoe I can do it via (remove-if-not (curry #'eql thing) list) but I wonder if there's a shorter way.

19:35:43 Bike :test-not #'eql, i think

19:35:54 Bike this is, of course, confusing

19:36:29 phoe Well, yes, that works.

19:36:38 phoe It's the first time I use :TEST-NOT.

20:10:35 phoe I have a class object. I want to remove it from the Lisp system altogether. No live instances of that class remain. Is it enough to call REMOVE-DIRECT-SUBCLASS on all of the direct superclasses of that class and remove all methods that specialize on that class?