freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
22:37:45
fiddlerwoaroof
Yeah, and ultimately results in ungainly system design because of Java's type system
22:41:55
phoe
but Java being a pile of #<unreadable object> isn't the topic here - was just trying to make an analogy
22:47:40
fiddlerwoaroof
I just hesitate to compare anything to Java because the people I'm talking to like to criticize Java
22:49:43
Shinmera
fiddlerwoaroof: mixins are another important piece that make CLOS so amenable to protocol design.
23:07:51
phoe
pfdietz: if he wants to explain that to his coworkers then that would be not the first nor the second or third thing he'd speak about
23:20:27
no-defun-allowed
pfdietz: Method combinations are no good if you're working a language without them.
23:33:04
fiddlerwoaroof
pfdietz: yeah, there's a library that implements CLOS-style generic functions for Clojure, but I think that's a bridge too far for now
23:33:25
fiddlerwoaroof
And, method combinations will make people think of AspectJ, which isn't good where I work
3:18:47
Josh_2
I have a slynk server that was working but now whenever I try to connect my emacs just freezes, any ideas?
7:09:26
jackdaniel
so what was the yesterday's conclusion? undefined beahvior, use do or something more sophisticated? :)
7:11:24
jackdaniel
heh, I now see mail from gitlab.cl.net that phoe proposes to disable tests as undefined behavior
7:11:27
beach
For WSCL, I am debating whether to explicitly specify that the behavior is undefined or whether to define the behavior. And if the latter, what alternative to opt for.
7:12:05
ck_
I couldn't attend the debate, is there a short summary of the behavior in question, other than "loop" ?
7:16:27
jackdaniel
beach: if it were a vote for a preferred alternative I'd say that "6" is more useful; it makes the mental model of what's going on easier: increment always goes after the iteration and finally goes after all iterations
7:17:35
aeth
(loop for i of-type (integer 0 5) from 0 to 5 do (print i)) ; should this give a type-error when 6 is reached even though 6 is only used in terminating the loop?
7:18:35
jackdaniel
right, I've left it out because of-type seems to have clear semantics: if we choose to increment x to 6 that should signal a condition, if we choose not to increment to 6 then it will meet criteria
7:22:49
aeth
jackdaniel: well, I had to bring it up because if it's unspecified then maybe some implementations would choose both interpretations, i.e. unless the varaible is referred to in a finally (in its final, one above, form) do not have the type-error
7:52:56
fiddlerwoaroof
It's always interesting to see how many different interpretations of a specification arise
7:54:38
fiddlerwoaroof
I encounter this semi-regularly at work, where we plan out a project and then, when implementation-time comes around, the team implementing often realize that there still remain at least two interpretations of the plan
8:29:55
pjb
beach: didn't you argue at els 2016 that MIT loop was bugged on this point? That it should print 5?
8:32:27
pjb
I would note that this is related to C for(unsigned char i=0;i<=MAX_UCHAR;i++), which if not compiled carefully, can be an infinite loop…
8:51:36
beach
pjb: Yes, that sounds plausible, and that's how I implemented it for SICL LOOP, like I said.
10:29:43
phoe
Yesterday I was trying to figure out how to treat the LOOP issue for a long while and it left me kinda exhausted
10:30:00
phoe
I was hopeful that the conclusion of "let's treat it as undefined" would be decent enough