IRC channel logs

<cky>Anyway, for anyone interested, I just pushed my (ice-9 i18n) changes.

<cky>In the current documentation, in the Block Comments section, it says that (+ #| this is a #| nested |# block comment |# 2) evaluates to 3.

<cky>Either there's a missing 1 before the block comment, or the result should be 2.

<cky>git blame says it was civodul's commit. ;-)

<nalaginrut>morning guilers~

<gzg>nalaginrut: o/ You know, you got me interested in FPGAs more. :^)

<nalaginrut>gzg: I'm planing a ARM board for fake lisp-machine, which means an high optimized Scheme VM runs on a ARM board

<nalaginrut>I'm in Shenzhen, so I can design/produce such a board in very low cost ;-P

<nalaginrut>gzg: anyway, FPGA is on my list (if I can get a cheaper one)

<gzg>nalaginrut: If I go do a CS/EE, that would be a fun master's project. :^)

<nalaginrut>yeah~

<gzg>nalaginrut: What's you price-range?

<gzg>for a FPGA*

<nalaginrut>gzg: the proper board cost 400$, the cheaper can't hold lisp-machine

<nalaginrut>and exclude tax...

<gzg>nalaginrut: Link and/or name to the board in-question?

<nalaginrut>no mention the price of IDE, QuartusII cost 2999$ per year IIRC

<nalaginrut>gzg: IIRC it's SparkIV or something else

<gzg>nalaginrut: The "Stratix" series, by Altera?

<nalaginrut>gzg: well, I haven't researched it, so I don't know clearly, since my next plan is a fake-lisp-machine runs on ARM, real-lisp-machine on FPGA is the next to next

<nalaginrut>alas, due to the price...

<gzg>Is implementing a practical scheme-machine really not do-able on a mid-range board? I was thinking about at least implementing a general implementation on one -- that's obviously a much simpler project/goal though. :^)

<gzg>I mean a basic R7RS small implementation right on the metal, not a whole OS.

<gzg>On my end.*

<nalaginrut>gzg: there's close design, a dedicated VM bytecode design based on regular CPU, it'd be fast in principle

<nalaginrut>I mean closer

<nalaginrut>not closed

<nalaginrut>but real lisp-machine is better since it's definitely fast than C+asm, in principle

<gzg>nalaginrut: Well if and/or when you start your project, please pimp it in various places -- I'd love to hear where/how it goes. :^)

<nalaginrut>gzg: you could by the fake-lisp-machine board when it's out, no more than 15$, maybe higher for abroad, but our plan is 'vary low cost'

<nalaginrut>s/vary/very

<nalaginrut>s/by/buy

<nalaginrut>BTW, I've started yesterday

<gzg>nalaginrut: Very cool; Any place I should follow yet, to keep up to date on the project?

<nalaginrut>not yet, it's only for inner community discussion yet, when the chips is decided we'll raise the topic in our mail-list, but it's for Chinese

<nalaginrut>maybe you can add hack42.com into your fav, and waiting

<nalaginrut>sorry but it's Chinese

<gzg>nalaginrut: Will the project itself and documentation, be in Chinese too?

<nalaginrut>gzg: no, it's a global project, only raised by Chinese community, so there'd be English docs

<nalaginrut>and for completely-opened purpose, we have to choose the hardware very carefully

<nalaginrut>plus considering price

<nalaginrut>powerful hardware is very hard to make it fully-opened

<nalaginrut>like RaspberryPI

<gzg>Which, ironically -- isn't fully freed. :^P

<gzg>

<nalaginrut>yup

<nalaginrut>and the chip is dedicated to RaspberryPI, you can't buy it on your own, IIRC

<gzg>nalaginrut: Well, I'll keep a look out -- I'm going to finish up some things before I head to bed, peace. o/

<gzg>AFK.

<nalaginrut>see ya

<nalaginrut>speak to the board, there's a joke yesterday. The PCB machine only support standard format, and there's no firmware source code, then we have to write sed script. I recalled RMS raised Free-software movement when he encountered such situation...

<nalaginrut>s/standard/un-standard

<civodul>Hello Guilers!

<nalaginrut>heya

<wingo>heya civodul :)

*wingo has been trying to raise frankenstein^Hthe RTL VM to life

<wingo>I mostly have it -- compiled eval seems to work, but there is some little problem i need to find

<civodul>hey wingo!

<wingo>but it's always a series of little problems :)

<civodul>i can imagine :-)

<civodul>can be pretty hard to debug i suppose

<wingo>yes

<wingo>but getting close

<nalaginrut>ooooops

<civodul>that's good news

<nalaginrut>any faster in compiling time? ;-P

<wingo>haha, right now it's getting slower :/

<wingo>eval is much faster

<wingo>maybe 2x as fast

<nalaginrut>yeah~

<wingo>but the compiler is bigger and not yet optimized

<nalaginrut>heh

<wingo>and it uses more macros than the old compiler

<civodul>eval may be a good benchmark

<wingo>so it takes longer to macroexpand

<wingo>which makes bootstrap time terrible

<wingo>newer code assumes the existence of peval, also

<wingo>which is the case after the compiler is compiled

<wingo>but it makes the naive expansion slow to interpret

<wingo>civodul: did you see that i did the two-dimensional environment thing in master's evaluator?

<civodul>ooh no (i was away last week), but that's a good thing

<civodul>so that's why it's twice as fast i guess?

<wingo>i tried it with 2.0 also

<wingo>but it was a lose for 2.0

<civodul>oh

<wingo>because the loop to traverse the rib chain is compiled badly

<civodul>i remember trying that in CEVAL many years ago, and giving up ;-)

<wingo>lots of local-ref/local-sets

<civodul>ok

<wingo>the format of an environment is now a vector

<wingo>slot 0 is the next rib

<wingo>slots 1 to N are the locals

<wingo>seems to work ok

<civodul>that's definitely an improvement

<wingo>yes

<wingo>especially in master where the memory overhead of a vector is just one word

<wingo>in stable-2.0 there's an extra word associated with weak vector data

<wingo>whereas in master weak vectors don't share an implementation with vectors

<civodul>ah right

<civodul>yes

<civodul>these are all the little bonuses that we tend to forget, but which are appreciable :-)

<wingo>yep :)

*taylanub wonders what bipt is up to ...

<mark_weaver>sneek: logs?

<amgarching>Hi. Is this an official syntax for keywords or a special case for define-module? (define-module (ice-9 getopt-long) :use-module ((ice-9 common-list) :select (some remove-if-not)) ...)

<amgarching>oh, I see. It has been changed in 2.0

<civodul>amgarching: '#:' is the preferred form now

<civodul>though i think ':' is still accepted in 'define-module'

<ijp>amgarching: you can set the reader option, but it might cause breakage

<amgarching>I'd better stick with official syntax. Though #: is visually somewhat heavy.

<mark_weaver>amgarching: I wouldn't recommend setting the reader option, because that's global to the entire guile session, and as ijp said may break something else that assumes :foo is a symbol.

<amgarching>I just had a puzzle for which I still dont have an explanation. One of the custom imported modules had (unless ...) form in the body but no (use-modules (guile compat)) in which I define "unless" for 1.8 (pre-2.0 dont have when/unless).

<amgarching>The error taking about "undefined unless variable" was firing at a very unrelated moment, namely when I called (getopt-long argv options) and after both arguments were evaluated. Does Guile 1.8 evaluate anything asyncronousely?

<amgarching>*error talking

<amgarching>I quote '(getopt-long (pk argv) (pk options)) and the error is gone. I remove the quote it is again there.

<amgarching>Took me some time to find that (unless ...) form without my workaround with (use-modules (guile compat)) in a completely unrelated module.

<dsmith-work>Howdy Guilers.

<wingo>mooo

<ijp>baaa

<davexunit>apt-get wingo

<wingo>hehe, reverse cowsay

*wingo crosses fingers, hopes to boot guile 2.2 today

*add^_ crosses fingers too

*ijp uncrosses fingers, recrosses them, and then crosses teh crosses

<add^_>ow ow ow

*wingo puts his pants on backwards

*davexunit does a handstand

<davexunit>I think we're ready

<wingo>:)

<ijp>hold on, just let me juggle a 3 club burkes barrage to be sure

<davexunit>guile 2.2 is so exciting.

<wingo>i really dig writing code assuming that i have a powerful macro expander available, and a good inliner

<wingo>that is sweet

<wingo>but it doesn't make for fast bootstraps

<wingo>currently taking 10 minutes to macroexpand everything after the evaluator is compiled

<wingo>surely i can reduce that but still it's a tricky baseline to have :/

<wingo>compilation itself doesn't take so long, amusingly

<wingo>after compiling eval.go, compiling psyntax-pp.go takes around 11 minutes to macroexpand everything, then 5 to compile

<wingo>just to compile psyntax.scm

<wingo>but hey, after that things get better, but then i run into some kind of prompt/abort weirdness

<wingo>i am hoping that once i fix that i'm done

<TaylanUB>I heard the plan for 2.4 is out, where can one find this ?

<wingo>i don't know that there is a 2.4 plan

<wingo>not currently anyway

<wingo>maybe someone has a plan ;)

<TaylanUB>Oh OK, I must've misunderstood it.

<ijp>I have a cunning plan

<wingo>if it were up to me, i would say native compilation would be 3.0, and no 2.4

<wingo>you schemer you

<ijp>sorry, forgot to /nick baldrick first

<bubu>hi, (parallel ...) seems pretty awesome, but i had difficulties on how to use it. In the end I created a list of all my parameters (indexes) and used par-map, but there must an easier way to parallelize a "for-like" loop ?

<dsmith-work>wingo: Ya. I noticed that the peval test fails, and the r5rs pitfalls test seems to run forever. With lots of cpu.

<wingo>dsmith-work: i haven't noticed that fwiw; there have been many occasions where a make clean is needed, fwiw

<dsmith-work>wingo: I alwsy start from gti clean -dxf

<ijp>bubu: first off, are you sure it is worth parallelising?

<bubu>ijp, yes it is

<ijp>par-map is slightly more appropriate than parallel

<bubu>just computing a function and changing the index "i"

<bubu>by i+1 etc...

<bubu>each iteration takes ~1 min

<ijp>(par-map (lambda (i) ...) (iota n))

<bubu>and I have around 2 thousand to do

<bubu>doh