freenode/#sicl - IRC Chatlog
Search
4:29:23
beach
Today is Monday, and Monday mornings are chaotic around here. Today is no exception. I'll be distracted the next 4 hours or so.
7:03:55
beach
It looks like aun abandoned us some 6 months ago, so the bignum implementation is up for grabs.
7:12:39
no-defun-allowed
Can there be a reasonable equality predicate (call it E) for which (eq A B) does not imply (E A B) for some A, B? (Or to avoid the implication arrow, for which there exists A, B such that (and (eq A B) (not (E A B)))?)
7:25:03
no-defun-allowed
That's what one of my friends said (that there isn't a reasonable predicate).
7:27:03
no-defun-allowed
I ask as Luckless and the original NonBlockingHashMap both test EQ before using the user-provided equality predicate; would it be fine to assume the previously mentioned implication holds?
7:28:48
beach
So, unless the user supplied something other than an equality predicate, no further test should be required if EQ returns true.
7:29:26
karlosz
if (eq A B) and (E A B) then (E A A) => T by the reflexive property of equivalence relations
7:29:46
no-defun-allowed
That's what I had figured. So there'd be no problem assuming the user supplies an equality predicate?
7:31:33
no-defun-allowed
Yes, that is what I plan to do, but I want to make sure that it wouldn't trip a user up. Not that the behaviour of non-standard :test functions is specified anyway.
14:44:33
jackdaniel
sorry to hear that - on the other hand tomorrow is not Monday, so that's something
14:45:28
beach
I received personal email from aun with this link: https://github.com/commander-trashdin/clng
14:45:52
beach
Normally, everyone in #lisp would have remarks, but this time I felt obliged to answer it myself.
14:47:36
jackdaniel
this seems, well, very undetailed, i.e "Existing one is decent but surely there are improvememnts. This part requires specific problems described."
14:56:20
beach
You can see from just the length of the message, that it must have turned my mood rotten, just from the time it took me to write it.
14:57:35
ck_
From the first paragraph alone I can tell though that it might be reusable, thus reducing the effort-per-communication in the long run
14:58:51
ck_
I know that this isn't a very optimistic take, but I perceive you as a knowledgeable, experienced and wise person. As such you might agree that it is unreasonable to expect the average level of understanding of any given topic to be on the level of the experts, or even seasoned professionals, of that topic
14:59:34
jackdaniel
I wonder why did you bother to write so long response for such unfinished document (I get the irritation of course)
15:00:04
ck_
at least it shows interest in the language; that, for me, classifies as the silver lining :)
15:00:45
beach
ck_: Sure. But what I don't understand is why people have this desire to express themselves in areas that they don't understand. But maybe they don't understand that they don't understand it.
15:02:10
beach
I mean, I don't feel the desire to try to improve on the way heart surgery is performed.
15:04:40
beach
But there must be something different about programming and programming languages. I mean, I don't know ANYONE who is not trained in heart surgery who would have such opinions. I guess programming is deceptively simple-seeming, so everyone feels competent enough.
15:05:21
ck_
there's also not a direct equivalent of "10 echo hello 20 goto 10" in surgery, for example :)
15:06:29
splittist
Perhaps it's people who are interested in programming and programming languages who think they know better about all sorts of things? (See any discussion on HN, for example.)
15:06:31
ck_
also, if you look at the vaccination 'debate', the a similar thing is occuring in general medicine too, if not invasive surgery.
15:07:17
beach
splittist: I think I'll pass. I look at one when it is linked to for other reasons. But you may be right.
15:10:51
jackdaniel
many fields are prone to 'fashions', and 'making software modern' seems to be such thing
15:11:10
beach
The other thing that turned my mood bad today was that I have been writing to my local TV station to point out elementary errors in their way of doing arithmetic, and no answer for more than a week, and the error continues. Basically to determine by how much the day length changes, they first round sunrise and sunset for each of two consecutive days, then they subtract. So the error can be up to 2 minutes. And they don't blink when
15:11:13
jackdaniel
ironically older systems are often better from many points of view than their modern counterparts
15:12:35
beach
jackdaniel: Yes, people like "Uncle Bob" often point this out. Like what on earth do we need millions of lines of code for in an ordinary car.
15:14:22
beach
I mean the person presenting the forecast should have said "I know I reported +3 minutes yesterday, and +1 minute today, and I know that's absurd, but I didn't put together these numbers, so blame my colleague Bill."
15:15:03
splittist
beach: why should they be accurate in that one respect? (When they aren't in any other?) You could think of it in terms of consistency (ie. consistently wrong).