<jab>cwebber I hear ya'll via dial in via a phone number... <Zelphir>cwebber: Thank you for the great talk! This will probably leave me with many ideas, that go like: "Could I do this with that actor model thing?" or "How could this be made with various capabilities?" <Zelphir>Also amazing, how you kept the live state in head and modified it live :D <Zelphir>I will recommend this dark magic to colleagues to watch, once I find the YouTube link. <cwebber>I should make a cleaner version of this talk, lol <Zelphir>Maybe also put code examples somewhere for people to do the things you did live. <Zelphir>So many cool ideas connected to that "you only have that object, so you can only do this and that". <Zelphir>Like for example I could imagine some screen sharing tool, which also allows to take control, but only for certain things. Or so. <Zelphir>OK I should really head off now : ) Bye! <cwebber>g'night Zelphir, and appreciated your questions/comments! <graywolf>Hello, does guile has some coding style documented somewhere? I've looked at the source of guile for inspiration, however it does not seem completely consistent, so I would like to know if the "preferred" way is documented somewhere. <lloda>there's a 'Coding standards' section in HACKING. The link to the GNU coding standards should definitely be updated. <lloda>i think you're right. It's mostly for C <lloda>i'm curious if you could point out some of the inconsistencies you saw <graywolf>I'm trying to improve indent of lisp in vim, so I was checking what is the "correct" way. Since currently I'm working on consequent for else in cond, I was checking how it's done. And it looks like guile does both 1 space indent and 2 space indent and I don't see a pattern there. Maybe there is one. <graywolf>Grepping for '\(cond$' gives examples fairly quickly. <lloda>i think most contributors just do C-M-SPC TAB on emacs but of course the result will depend on their settings <antipode>graywolf: Guix has one, you could borrow it. ***Colere is now known as Sauvin
<dsmith-work>The Scheme coding style is basically what emacs wants it to be. <Zelphir>55d82aaaffb6e36d89928670473d0f957dbc822d/macros/contracts/contract.scm#L288. However, the failing test case shows, that actually the record contains the symbol `func-name`. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Somehow the `(quote func-name)` is no associated with the variable `func-name`, but I am not sure what to do about it. -- How could I make this work? <jab>Zelphir: you could try to run the macro in Dr. Racket editor...I think they have a macro debugger... <Zelphir>Hm, I will try. Not sure I will get all required imports in Racket, but I will try. <jab>Zelphir: yeah not everything will work. <jab>Guile needs a better debugging facilities. <Zelphir>Trying to figure out how the DrRacket thing works and what it actually shows me, but I do wish I had a good macro stepper in Guile. I somewhere online found a trick that I have used sometimes: Quasiquote all expansions of a macro definition, then evaluate again and unquote parts and this way one can go on a bit. But it is not as easy as if one having a macro stepper. <jab>Zelphir_: I agree a macro stepper would be awesome. <old>dsmith-work: Gods will <ZelphirKalt>Hm. To use the Racket macro stepper I need to change things in the code, because lambda* works differently. <jab>ZelphirKalt: that's fun. :) <ZelphirKalt>I think part of the problem becomes understanding the macro stepper's output. <ZelphirKalt>Argh, and exception handling of course also is different ... Beginning to think, that putting Guile code in DrRacket and evaluating there, is not such a simple matter after all. <jab>ZelphirKalt: sorry dude. Maybe try writing a guile specific macro debugger? hahaha <ZelphirKalt>Wait, that's more macro magic, when I am already trying to fix my macro!