freenode/lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
9:01:51
fivo
scymtym: yes I was thinking of cst. Why do you think it's outside of its scope? The final output would be a cst of the expanded macro call.
9:04:10
logicmoo
oni-on-ion: he replied.. turns out to be religious reasons: https://gitter.im/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3
9:57:17
beach
I take my warnings very seriously, which is why I am a bit annoyed, when there are "note"s that I can't seem to avoid, because they force me to look at every compiler message to make sure I am not missing anything.
10:01:26
aeth
Can it do it for warnings and not notes? Or is it for everything? Because some notes in SBCL seem literally impossible to avoid. Like "hey, if you change the semantics of your program, it's faster".
10:01:52
beach
I set it to IGNORE when I had to compile huge sequence functions. I should set it back to whatever it was.
10:05:14
aeth
jackdaniel: oh cool, I guess I can locally declare a muffle for note in this one place that has to be both (speed 3) and a rational. thanks.
10:05:58
aeth
(it's a typecase... the last, slow case is naturally something that SBCL's optimization notes don't like)
13:52:07
gabbiel
Sorry I was sleeping and now saw messages. Aeth: so if it expands into a seftable function, then it's seftable?
14:59:30
jmercouris
so I'm having an error in loading my website, loads fine on macOS, doesn't load fine on my FreeBSD install
14:59:49
jmercouris
however, the error doesn't appear to be a difference between anything, both are SBCL, same version
15:00:36
jmercouris
I believe it thinks that DEFTABLE is a function call, when it is actually a macro provided by mito
15:01:29
jmercouris
now here's the interesting thing though, if you see packages.lisp (also in the gist), you'll see I'm using all the symbols from mito
15:02:04
Bike
this doesn't seem like an OS-variant kind of error. are you totally sure you're running the same thing on each system?
17:16:54
Xach
flip214: "alexandria" would get what you seek. i think someone has a PR for making it downcase by default.
20:18:47
nicklaf
I am reading the introduction to R5Rs, where the features that scheme introduced to lisp are enumerated
20:19:10
nicklaf
I would be curious to know if any of these features didn't make their way into common lisp
20:21:40
nicklaf
and then: "Scheme was the first major dialect of Lisp to distinguish procedures from lambda expressions and symbols..."
20:21:43
pfdietz
Scheme has guaranteed tail calls, CL does not. Scheme evaluates the operator position of an expression the same way as other positions; CL does not.
20:25:33
nicklaf
anyway i've been looking at some very early lisp code, and am unfamiliar with dynamic scope
20:26:04
nicklaf
and i was somewhat startled by the claim in R5Rs that scheme was one of the first languages to have first class procedures
20:28:57
pfdietz
"Most Lisps specify an order of evaluation for procedure arguments. Scheme does not." This difference from CL is, by itself, enough to consign the language to the depths of hell. :)
20:30:14
tfb
nicklaf: I think Scheme was one of the first implementations to have really coherent lexical scope, and you could argue functions are not first class without that
20:31:03
tfb
Lots of older lisps had dynamic scope in the interpreter and perhaps half of lexical scope in compiled code (so, yes, code behaved differently if it was compiled)
20:38:16
tfb
I think many people thought that dynamic scope was better (this seems odd now but I have heard this from people). But it's a bit hostile to any reasonable compilation strategy, so they compromised.
20:39:27
nicklaf
According to Paul Graham, there is a typo in Mccarthy's original 'metacircular' eval function, and graham blames it on dynamic scope
20:40:10
nicklaf
i think he might have said that it was because it was written before it was programmed :)
20:41:34
nicklaf
or, no, i was right the first time: "It's an eloquent testimony to the dangers of dynamic scope that even the very first example of higher-order Lisp functions was broken because of it. It may be that McCarthy was not fully aware of the implications of dynamic scope in 1960."
20:42:24
tfb
nicklaf: incidentally it looks like Standard Lisp (which is what I learnt, really) has just this weirdness: see http://user.ceng.metu.edu.tr/~ucoluk/research/lisp/generalinfo.html (the PDF report, p16)