freenode/lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
21:33:51
jmercouris
sjl_: Why does OpenSSL need 550k lines of code? what is it doing that is so complex?
21:35:09
jmercouris
for example, how could one have written test suites for the exploits on intel chips?
21:43:00
Xach
There are issues involved with implementing eavesdrop-proof communication that are different from implementing signature/checksum verification.
21:43:19
Xach
Maybe it's possible and worthwhile in CL but it is not something that interests me due to my impression of the difficulty.
21:44:28
sjl_
A better comparison might be Go's TLS implementation, which is ~13k lines of code. If you're Google, you can throw money at cryptographers and security engineers to write/audit a TLS library for your language.
21:44:47
sjl_
But in a smaller community without piles of money, that's probably not going to happen.
21:45:27
sjl_
It's much, *much* easier to implement a single checksum algorithm than even a decent subset of TLS.
21:45:36
Xach
I am always on board for implementing something in CL even if it's slower or clunkier because I love to avoid FFI.
21:46:15
sjl_
Checksum is probably the wrong word. You get the initial Quicklisp installer over https, which includes Xach's public key
21:48:00
jmercouris
so the question is, if we can verify a library is what it says it is, what is the advantage of having HTTPS support?
21:49:11
Xach
In my ideal world each CL implementation would provide the right stuff to make secure connections on all supported platforms.
21:49:53
jmercouris
last question, your above statement implies some implementations provide support secure connections
21:49:54
Xach
If all implementations that Quicklisp supports also supported secure communication, things would be done by now.
21:56:42
jgkamat
sjl_: I'm actually planning to write an exploit for that slime issue at some point, chrome has some raw TCP apis exposed to js and I want to give that a shot. I'm super busy though so not sure when I'll get a chance to work on that
21:57:24
sjl_
As long as you're nice and present it as a proof-of-concept, and don't actually exploit anyone's machine, that would be valuable.
5:41:53
gabbiel
Hey guys, I'm trying to create this 2 macros called "synonymize-macro" and "synonymize-function"
5:43:03
gabbiel
I'm trying to really make it a synonym, i.e. have the new synonyms inherit documentation and arglists
5:44:20
gabbiel
I thought of using trivial-args, and then processing the return value of the arglist function in the trivial-args package
5:44:25
no-defun-allowed
eg (setf (fdefinition 'bar) (fdefinition 'foo)) worked here, copied function and documentation
5:55:25
gabbiel
on a similar note, I also have a macro called funmacro, which turns a function into a macro
5:59:29
gabbiel
sounds dumb, but I have this function I use for my hobby which uses only lists and its annoying to have to quote a bunch of lists
6:01:37
gabbiel
I also wrote a macro "nq" which doesn't define anything, but calls a function with args quoted, maybe I should use that, but idk, funmacro is useful because it also allows for defining with anonymous functions
6:09:58
gabbiel
no-defun-allowed: is there a function akin to fdefinition/macro-function for special operators?
6:15:03
pillton
I am skeptical about your synonym anyhow. You are only considering the function namespace.
6:22:31
gabbiel
quick question, I learned I have to do (eval-when (compile load execute) ...) when I need to use macros within the same file. if I macro that away, will it eval-when, or wont it do anything as its a macro?
8:40:46
pjb
afidegnum: you cannot install quicklisp in emacs. emacs implements emacs lisp. quicklisp is written in Common Lisp.
8:41:42
pjb
afidegnum: there was a (partial) Common Lisp implemented in emacs lisp, but it bit rot since introduction of lexical bindings in emacs lisp. You might want to work on it, it's emacs-cl. Then a port of quicklisp to emacs-cl would be envisageable.
8:44:36
pjb
afidegnum: slime is a kind if IDE letting you develop CL programs using emacs as an editor and user interface for the CL debugger, the CL repl, the CL inspector, etc. So indeed, you could install quicklisp using the CL you access thru slime. But it would be simplier to start at the terminal with quicklisp, since quicklisp also has tools to install slime.
8:48:47
pjb
Ah,sorry, I don't know anything about portacle. Shouldn't everything be already installed and available with it?
8:52:51
pjb
Is quicklisp already installed in your home director? Is there a file ~/quicklisp/setup.lisp ?
8:53:54
pjb
(load #P"~/quicklisp/setup.lisp") is all that is required to load quicklisp if it's already installed. You could add this form to your rc file.