IRC channel logs

<mark_weaver>I seem to have gotten myself distracted by getting two SRFIs implemented for Guile. I'm working on both SRFI-43 and SRFI-64.

<mark_weaver>when really I should be writing docs for MVars :)

<davexunit>mark_weaver: I was happy to see SRFI-111 on the ML.

<Sleep_Walker>what is wrong with: (call-with-values (http-get "http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html") (lambda (response data) response))

<Sleep_Walker>?

<Sleep_Walker>reported error is:

<Sleep_Walker>ERROR: In procedure #<<response> version: (1 ...

<Sleep_Walker>ERROR: Wrong type to apply: #<<response> version: (1 . 1) co....

<Sleep_Walker>(rest of message is http response)

<davexunit>hmmm

<davexunit>may I present to #guile preview version of guile-2d's webpage: http://guile-2d.dthompson.us/

<nalaginrut>morning guilers~

<nalaginrut>unfortunately, I have to work on Sunday today...

<davexunit>oh no :(

<nalaginrut>well, positively, I have received a bunch of reports for my stupid bugs in Artanis again. I feel happy~

<mark_weaver>Sleep_Walker: the first argument to 'call-with-values' should be a thunk (i.e. a procedure that takes no arguments)

<mark_weaver>so you want (call-with-values (lambda () (http-get "http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html")) (lambda (response data) response))

<mark_weaver>although in this case, I see that you only want the first value, so you don't need to use 'call-with-values' at all.

<mark_weaver>davexunit: hey, I like the guile-2d logo! :)

<nalaginrut>davexunit: oh you got a logo?!

<nalaginrut>I haven't prepared the real logo of Artanis, since designers I known are very busy these days...

*nalaginrut nalaginrut has no painting talent...

<mark_weaver>nalaginrut: I finished my implementation of SRFI-43 for Guile.

<nalaginrut>43 contains vector-append ?

<mark_weaver>yes

<mark_weaver>I just need docs and tests now, but it passes Shiro Kawai's test suite for SRFI-43 anyway.

*nalaginrut can't remember each srfi number for its functions

<nalaginrut>nice!

<mark_weaver>it's the vector library.

<mark_weaver>so it will probably end up with 2.0.10 after all.

<mark_weaver>s/with/in/

<nalaginrut>Can I claim it's definitely in 2.0.10 now?

<nalaginrut>in my tutorial

<mark_weaver>well, I'd say "most likely"

<mark_weaver>"definitely" might be a bit strong.

<nalaginrut>well, please tell me when you decide to merge to stable-2.0 ;-P

<nalaginrut>then I could claim it

<mark_weaver>okay, I'll let you know.

<nalaginrut>yeah, thanks

<nalaginrut>hmm...Gnutella is not GNU software...

<olkol>starting gnucash i get an error beginning with "Throw without catch before boot" http://pastebin.com/kzREHfit where guile seems to be the cause

<olkol>gnucash 2.6.0 and guile 2.0, reverting to guile 1.8.8 and previous gnucash works again

<Sleep_Walker>is there command doing nothing?

<Sleep_Walker>(like pass in python, : in bash ...)

<olkol>i do not understand, without changing the environment it runs fine with 1.8.8

<jemarch>hi

<davexunit>good morning guilers

<davexunit>nalaginrut: I took my logo from a freely available set of art on http://opengameart.org

<davexunit>see here for a preview of the site I am making: http://guile-2d.dthompson.us/

<wingo>greets

<Fishlord_Murloc>I often use the idiom to define a function which has to take one or more arguments of (define (f x . xs) {define xs (cons x xs)) <body> ), this in guile binds xs in the body to an improper list whose final cdr is <unspecied> is this a bug?

<Fishlord_Murloc>Not shadowing xs any more with itself solves this.

<wingo>it is not really a bug -- your code is equivalent to (define (f x . xs) (letrec ((xs (cons x xs))) <body>))

<wingo>so you can see that the xs in the cons refers to the new binding you declared

<wingo>ideally that should signal an error (accessing a letrec binding before it is bound) but that is not currently the case

<wingo>so your code has a bug, and guile's lack of reporting is somewhat of a bug also

<Fishlord_Murloc>wingo, hmm, it works in other implementations, I was of the impression that with value bindings it would be identical to a let and shadow but with function bindings be recursive.

<Fishlord_Murloc>Maybe I misread something.

<Fishlord_Murloc>wingo, is there a way to let a shadow exist over the remaining scope?

<Fishlord_Murloc>Different from set! because it can't be done conditionally.

<Fishlord_Murloc>And without using let which would mean creating a new scope.

<wingo>there is no difference between values and functions in this case

<wingo>it's a letrec; and the initializers are in the scope of the new bindings

<wingo>and otherwise i don't know what you are trying to do :) if you want the old xs on the right-hand-side there is no way out of using `let'

<Fishlord_Murloc>wingo, I'm bad at explaining, what I mean is: http://hastebin.com/raw/solokujadi

<wingo>sorry, don't have time to look right now

<wingo>i suggest you review the section of the r5rs about internal definitions

<Fishlord_Murloc>Aww. =(

<Fishlord_Murloc>I might as well just ask in #scheme