IRC channel logs


back to list of logs

<davexunit>paroneayea: cool!
<davexunit>hmm, I've gotten pretty good at eliminating scm->f64 and f64->scm instructions, but I've got some scm->u64 instructions that are killing me.
<amz3>héllo :)
<roelj>What's the shortest way of creating an empty file with Guile?
<civodul>roelj: (call-with-output-file "foo" (const #t))
<roelj>civodul: Cool, thanks!
<lloda`>last patch on master gives me this
<lloda`>scheme@(guile-user)> (define x 0.0) (< 0.0 1e-15)
<lloda`>$5 = #t
<lloda`>scheme@(guile-user)> (define x 0.0)
<lloda`>scheme@(guile-user)> (< x 1e-15)
<lloda`>$6 = #f
<lloda`>can anyone confirm.
<roelj>lloda`: Sorry, I don't have the latest Guile. On 2.0.13 it returns #t on $6.
<ft>I get #t on, which is a few weeks old.
<ft>Ah, latest patch on master is "Add unboxed floating point comparison instructions" which seems related. Let me build that.
<lloda`>ft: yes
<lloda`>I have already tested HEAD~1 and it's fine
<ft>lloda`: Can confirm!
<ft>Also, incremental builds don't seem to update git version information correctly.
<ft>My binary now shows the buggy behaviour, but still says "" when starting up, like my previous build did.
<ft>(major-version), (minor-version) and (micro-version) show the correct information, though.
<lloda`>ah thx
<lloda`>I think ./ fixes the version
<lloda`>sneek: later tell davexunit your f64 unboxing patch may be buggy, could you check the irc logs at 13:01 ff
<sneek>Will do.
<ft>CET :)
<ft>And yes, running fixes the generated version string. Running configure alone is not enough.
<ft>I apologize if this is documented somewhere. :)
<lloda`>ft: HACKING mentions the ./ step, but it says nothing about re-running or versions etc. I found out by trial & error
<ft>lloda`: Thanks in any case! :)
<davexunit>lloda`: if you believe my patch to be buggy, then revert it.
<davexunit>or I'll revert it. whatever.
<davexunit>just revert it when you get the chance. fuck it.
<davexunit>I don't have time to investigate today and I'm ready to just cut my losses.
<lloda`>whoa man, take it easy
<lloda`>patches have bugs, happens all the time
<lloda`>I'm not a maintainer and I don't revert other people's patches
<lloda`>if wingo thought the patch was worthwhile, so it was
<lloda`>I'm sure it can be fixed, it doesn't have to be right now
<lloda`>I can use the version before no problem, breakage on master is expected
<lloda`>just a report, fyi, etc.
***karswell` is now known as karswell
<jmd>I want to specify a match expression for a pair whose cdr is a record. How do I do it?
<sneek>jmd, you have 1 message.
<sneek>jmd, alezost says: that font is from 'font-misc-misc' package: look at "/gnu/store/...-font-misc-misc-1.1.2/share/fonts/X11/misc/fonts.dir" - it should be listed there
<jmd>(yes I have read the manual)
<davexunit>jmd: (match thing ((first-thing . (? is-this-a-foo? second-thing)) ...))
<davexunit>if you have access to the record type internals you can destructure the record directly, usually you only have access to that if you are writing some internal api
<davexunit>(match thing ((first-thing . ($ <my-record-type> foo bar ...)) ...))
<jmd>That second way is exactly what I tried.
<jmd>... wait no. What are foo and bar?
<jmd>names or values?
<davexunit>those are identifiers that the struct fields will be bound to
<davexunit>consider this
<davexunit>(define-record-type <foo> (make-foo bar baz) (bar foo-bar) (baz foo-baz))
<davexunit>(match (make-foo 1 2) (($ <foo> x y) (+ x y)))
<davexunit>=> 3
<davexunit>x is bound to the bar field, y to the baz field
<jmd>Ok. I must use the first way then. I had misunderstood what $ does.
<davexunit>? is for using any given predicate
<davexunit>more general
<jmd>Yeah, I understand now. Thanks.
<ng0>ACTION just made a nice progress with the pike package
<ng0>weird build systems
<ng0>this is more compiling than in the last months
<ng0>ah wrong channel
<OrangeShark> mentions we should all be programming in lisp
<janneke>paroneayea: so GOOPS really has no functional clone or setters...amazing
<paroneayea>janneke: not out of the box, no :)
<janneke>I could not imagine
<paroneayea>janneke: but neither does srfi-9, we're just lucky to also have (srfi srfi-9 gnu) extensions :)
<paroneayea>but that's recent!
<janneke>Oh, it is?
<paroneayea>in the last couple years iirc
<paroneayea>civodul extracted it from guix
<janneke>paroneayea: in any case, it seems we're somehow all in sync ;-)
<paroneayea>janneke: :)
<paroneayea>ACTION turns on the faucets on all eight sinks
<janneke>ACTION wonders what they pour on a friday night