IRC channel logs


back to list of logs

<blake2b>has anybody tried using Guile with Hare (Drew Devault's new C-"improved" language) yet?
<drakonis>hmm, do clarify
<jab>blake2b: that would be a fun experiment...
<ArneBab>I just looked into gc while reading the blog post by wingo, and I do not understand this: if (bytes_until_gc - size > bytes_until_gc) →
<ArneBab>how can that not always be true?
<ArneBab>always be false
<ArneBab>it simplifies to -size > 0 ⇒ false
<ArneBab>this is in scm_gc_register_allocation
<ArneBab>It looks like this should be if (size > bytes_until_gc) … : If the allocated object would trigger GC, do trigger GC and expand the heap.
<wingo>bytes_until_gc is a count-down timer, eventually subtracting a size makes it overflow
<nckx>Clever, but maybe deserving of a comment :)
<nckx>sneek: later ask dthompson: Why not use /root/.config/guix/current/bin/guix-daemon? You seem to have thought this through, but I don't see what further downgrading buys you — apart from bugs like this one :). It's roundly discouraged and might be made hard to impossible in future.
<sneek>Got it.
<nckx>Oops, wrong channel, sorry. But sneek is cross-channel, right…
<dsmith-work>Happy Friday, Guilers!!
<dsmith-work>nckx: I don't remember if I fixed that. Used to be would deliver on any channel.
<dsmith-work>sneek: later tell dsmith Sent from #guile
***dsmith-work is now known as dsmith
***dsmith is now known as dsmith-work
<dsmith-work>nckx: Nope. Will deliver on any channel.
<ArneBab>wingo: Ah, I see … do you why it is done this way? if bytes_until_gc - size overflows, size > bytes_until_gc must be true. Is that some performance optimization for compilers?
<nckx>dsmith-work: I see that as a feature, not something that needs fixing (since it the change in behaviour would be silent and possibly confusing to old timers), but an 'xxx said in #guile' when the channels differ would be nice.
<nckx>Although I guess it does make sneek off-topic sometimes.
<nckx>dsmith-work: Maybe it could always send the message in the originating channel? Say something in #guix -> get a ping in #guile where you lurk bet seldom speak (now who could that describe...).
<dsmith-work>nckx: Yeah, I thought I changed it to only deliver to the orginating channel. Probbaly was just considering it and decided against.
<dsmith-work>Porbbaly some flaming torches and pitchforks were involvled..
<dsmith-work>sneek: seen civodul
<sneek>I last saw civodul in #guix 9 days ago, saying: so you can't just @ them.
<nckx>But deliver only in the originating channel when the reciptient talks: in the originating channel, or: in any channel?
<nckx>That's where I thought my suggestion differed, but maybe that's what you considered.
<dsmith-work>Ok it's the "seen" that I updated to include the chan
<nckx>The irony of that sneek message. Would have been too perfect with s/@/ping/ :)
<ekaitz>Hi, how can you make `procedure-source` return something that is not #f?
<lilyp>auto-compilation with -O1 or similar did the trick last time I checked (things might have changed tho)
<dsmith-work>nckx: Oh, so on any "spoken" channel, deliver to the "sent from" channel?
<dsmith-work>The person might not be in both channels..
<nckx>I was just gonna say: unless they left the latter, then deliver in the former as a special case.
<nckx>Sheesh, sounds more complicated than it is.
<dsmith-work>Sounds too complicated for a poor little bot.
<nckx>sneek: Do simple if-statements scare you?
*sneek shudders
<nckx>sneek is too terrified to say.
<ekaitz>lilyp: let me try :) thanks
<nckx>dsmith-work: Since I've got you cornered: somebody asked me where sneek's source code was hosted, I pointed them to your gitlab. But the code there is old and (from memory) all at one ‘initial commit’. They were interested in packaging sneek for Guix.
<ekaitz>lilyp: not working for me... maybe I'm doing something wrong?
<nckx>Hmm, there's an explicit question missing there.
*nckx steals professors' trick
<nckx>dsmith-work: ‘…elaborate.’
<lilyp>I could be remembering the wrong flags tbh
<dsmith-work>nckx: Oh man. The bot is just a little-as-I-could-get-away-with port of sarahbot.
<dsmith-work>I only poseted it case people asked. It's not really in a state for general distribution..
<nckx>(That was my impression from talking to you before but I didn't want to put words in your mouth.)
<dsmith-work>And I don't really have the time/energy to work on it much.
<nckx>Am I also correct in assuming sneek as deployed and enjoyed differs from that older public code?
<dsmith-work>I thought sarahbot was cool in #scheme, I thought we ought to have something in #guile too. But written in Guile of course, not that java-thing
<dsmith-work>nckx: I may have made a few small changes.
<nckx>Famous last words of any devops™ engineer® ever.
<nckx>sneek: You're not AGPL, are you?