freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
16:07:21
tfb
Somewhere there is stuff (also not in the standard) about bivalant sreams which are streams which can contain both characters and bytes, and which I think you really kind of need for webby stuff
16:08:30
eminhi
tfb: we can use *open* with different :element-type, when finer control over stream is needed
16:08:33
tfb
(and. doh, flexi-streams is 'Flexible bivalent streams for Common Lisp': I should have looked at it!)
17:56:58
jasom
skidd0: If nobody mentioned it, EXIT should not be in the CL package, so if you don't use CL-USER there should be no conflict...
17:58:31
jasom
cl-user is an implementation-defined superset of the CL package; it has non-portable but useful things (most implementations define QUIT for example; SBCL defined EXIT in addition to QUIT because they changed the interface IIRC)
18:05:40
skidd0
the general user story is "I want to add a task." > "I execute 'to-do-binary --add-task'"
18:06:10
skidd0
which, in code would then open a connection (since the binary doesn't live in memory and thus can't maintain an open connection)
18:07:09
skidd0
so in my understanding, every db op (like add-task) would need to be wrapped in the with-connection
19:47:47
jasom
skidd0: that is correct. I would recommend doing a with-connection around your main function though (assuming *most* invocations of your program will need to connect to the database).
19:48:51
skidd0
well the "main" function that the end-user interacts with is a cli function with CLON
19:49:48
jasom
skidd0: assuming the commands are functions, just put it in the body of those functions.
19:50:17
jasom
I'm just suggesting you not do (with-connection <lookup some data>) (with-connection <modify some data>) ... or something stupid like that
19:51:38
skidd0
and for each command line option from clon, have a with-connection at the start of that commands function body
19:52:36
skidd0
so i'm thinking it'd be better to wrap each of the functions in the to-do package rather than the functions in the cli
0:04:14
esthlos
heya, I want to make an array containing a bunch of bit vectors which are not eq (different memory locations). how can I do this without much pain?
0:12:30
esthlos
Bike: if I change a bit in one of the vectors with setf, I don't want it to change in every vector
0:13:03
Bike
let me guess: you're doing something like (make-array n :initial-element (make-array m :element-type 'bit ...))?
0:19:31
esthlos
Bike: is there a way, then, to get around make-array warning that the type is incorrect when calling make-array?
3:10:20
equwal
Looks pretty neat, definitely better than w3m which I use for most of my non-firefox browing.
3:10:24
iqubic
DO you run Linux? I run linux and I'm not sure I want to go through the pain of getting it to work.
3:10:44
equwal
I'll just start it up and review it now I guess, I'm used to compiling stuff from source at this point.
3:24:18
figurelisp
why do people call javascript same as lisp? in what sense they are talking about and is that true?
3:26:29
mange
I don't think anyone would say that Javascript is the same as Lisp, but people often want to claim that it's very "Scheme-y". I think the biggest thing that lets people claim that is first-class functions.
3:28:26
drewc
figurelisp: because people from C++ and Java think Lisp is functional, and think ECMAscript is as well.
3:29:55
equwal
brettgilio: Arch probably has 1.4.9 pre-compiled in their testing repo, and if so you shouldn't use that repo on stable. You will eventually break stuff doing that. Instead, you compile from source.
3:30:05
beach
figurelisp: Lots of people would like to think that their language is some Lisp dialect. But since "Lisp" is not well defined (as opposed to Common Lisp), it is meaningless and can't be checked or refuted. Luckily, this channel is dedicated to Common Lisp, so we don't have debates like that.
3:32:00
beach
equwal: Like I said, Lisp is not well defined, so it is not obvious to some people. But since this channel is about Common Lisp, we don't have to decide one way or the other.
3:34:23
equwal
If it was a genuine question then the answer is no, it isn't a lisp, but it does have some vaguely functional things like lambdas.
3:35:36
drewc
figurelisp: from that link: 'JavaScript also isn’t Lisp as people who write Lisp use the word. Agree or disagree, the “Lisp Community” has coalesced around Common Lisp. Anything that doesn’t harken back to MacLisp is considered not-Lisp by experts. You know, Scheme looks a lot like a Lisp-1 to everyone else, but hard-core Lispers will tell you that Scheme isn’t Lisp and that the only thing it has in common with Lisp is CONS'
3:37:28
equwal
Can we find any specific source who claims that Scheme isn't a lisp? At the very least, its inventors definitely considered it a lisp.
3:37:49
drewc
FWIW, I now write primarily in a scheme dialect, and I do not call it Lisp, it's scheme! :)