***Twirlystache is now known as gaybargaybar
*tadni wonders what would need to be done, to implement a modeline in guile-wm. <tadni>Probably the biggest thing stopping me from switching over to it, from stumpwm. ***gaybargaybar is now known as bionic_lemur
<tadni>bionic_lemur: You've changed man, you've changed. <b4283>is there a simple algebra system for guile? <ArneBab>b4283: you mean something for solving differencial equations? <b4283>ArneBab: no calculus related, just algebra simplification <b4283>sqrt(2) + 1 => 3 + 2*sqrt(2) <b4283>writing one might be interesting .... ;P <ArneBab>b4283: for simplifications I only know about maxima, but that uses common lisp. <civodul>someone could try to port it to Guile... <ArneBab>just discovered libRUIN - that sounds as if could be a base for an in-terminal browser. <b4283>you forgot your translation beard ***dsmith-w` is now known as dsmith-work
***dsmith-work is now known as dsmith
***dsmith is now known as dsmith-work
<ArneBab>sneek: later tell dsmith-work the uptime <civodul>oh good, so you had time to visit a bit? <xdje>Yeah. Spent Monday finishing up gdb+guile patches, but had all day Tuesday. <taylanub>do we generally aim for equivalent behavior between compiled and interpreted code? in 2.0.11, (eqv? "foo" "foo") in the REPL gives #f, (eval '(eqv? "foo" "foo") (interaction-environment)) gives #t, should this be reported? <ijp>and (define-module (foo) #:export (x)) (define x (eqv? "foo" "foo")) //// (use-modules-foo) x gives #f <taylanub>ijp: AFAIK lines inserted in the REPL are compiled <mark_weaver>in areas where the behavior is unspecified, it's to be expected that it may differ between compiled and interpreted. <ijp>you realise that makes your question redundant, right? <ijp>anyway, that module should go in a file, it will be compiled <taylanub>ijp: the REPL input gets compiled but an `eval' call then forces interpretation .. or what did you mean? <mark_weaver>two string literals that are string=? may or may not share locations.