IRC channel logs

<w0ll3q1uszxabiwo><w0ll3q1uszxabiwo> "https://github.com/libfive/..." <- .

<dsmith>So there are folds and for-each and map. Usually applying a function over some list(s)

<dsmith>I've several times needed to apply a list of function to the same argument/input.

<dsmith>IS there a general thing/concept/funtion for this? I suspect there is in Haskell

<singpolyma>In Haskell it would be map ($arg) listOfFuncs

<singpolyma>So (map (lambda (f) (f arg)) listOfFuncs)

<lloda>yeah that's just map. srfi-26 lets you do (cut <> arg). idk if it has a particular name

<rekado>(shadow-ban strikes again…)

<rekado>(map (lambda (f x) (f x)) (list 1+ 1- number->string) (list 1 2 3))

<rekado>is there a name for (lambda (f x) (f x)) ?

<rekado>it’s not quite “apply”

<civodul>rekado: not that i know of

<rekado>could also do (map apply fs (map list args))

<rekado>not sure if that’s clearer

<dsmith-work>Happy Friday, Guilers!!

<dsmith-work>Yeah, it's no trouble to (map (lambda (f) (f arg)) (list of f's)). Just wondering is there is a name for that (lambda (f) (f arg))

<dsmith-work>sneek: botsnack

<sneek>:)

<dsmith-work>!uptime

<sneek>I've been running for 3 days

<sneek>This system has been up 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 50 minutes

<old>Is there any advantage of using `export-syntax` in a module declaration instead of plain `export`?

<old>I don't see anything in the manual concerning this

<nckx>civodul: Seriously, please consider ‘/mode #guile +R’ && ’/mode #guile -q $~a’ to stop these shocking accusations of the shadowbanz.

<civodul>nckx: is "$~a" to be understood literally?

<civodul>ACTION is clueless

<nckx>Yes.

<nckx>From what I can see, you did it right.

<nckx>rekado can test it if they like.

<nckx>…that ‘Yes’ was… poorly placed.

<rekado>I’ll probably lose identification in a day.

<rekado>I thought znc would authenticate me automatically, but that doesn’t seem to work and I’m too phlegmatic to check if this can be changed in the configuration.

<drakonis>use sasl or config znc to send a message to nickserv

<old>Could someone explain to me what's all that talk about shadow ban lately? I'm kind of out of the loop

<ArneBab>old: in which context?

<rekado>old: up until a few minutes ago only people who were identified with nickserv could send a message to #guile

<rekado>without prior identification you would not get an error when sending a message. It just wouldn’t be relayed.

<rekado>in my atrophied vocabulary the closest noun matching this phenomenon is the effective “shadow ban”

<nckx>To be clear: <only people who were identified with nickserv could send a message> still the case. <would not get an error when sending> not the case.

<nckx>Whether or not to keep the original restriction at all is, fortunately, not my monkey circus.

<nckx>It was presumably there for a reason, and might be a good idea in a channel with low op coverage.

<rekado>seeing an error is a great improvement

<rekado>beats having to compulsively check http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guile/

<old>rekado: Oh I see. That does not seem to impact me then

<old>Sounds terrible to be shadow ban :/

<old>Like you think nobody is answering you for some reason, but really you're just quietly muted

<nckx>It was not deliberate, just a side effect.

<old>Yes I understand

<nckx>Until recently, I don't think there was a better way to do this. +R is new. By IRC standards, it's gooder.

<old>Clearly having a message that says that you should identify yourself to NickServ until then you're muted, is great

<nckx>It's a revolutionary idea whose time has come.

<old>Is this really necessary? I mean, a spammer could just create many account with NickServ no?

<nckx>Yes, but in practice, they don't.

<old>okay

<nckx>Barring some obsessive exceptions, spammer and work ethos seem to sufficiently conflict just enough to make this ‘work’.

<old>I wonder what is the point in spamming a IRC channel of a community though

<old>I mean, where is there to gain from that?

<old>s/where/what/

<nckx>Speaking generally, not about #guile: a significant share of problems aren't actually caused by rational actors, against which your arguments make perfect sense. Making it ‘hard’ for an emotional user to open up a Webchat browser tab in rage is actually really effective, even if we're conditioned to think it's not.

<nckx>As for what's to gain: your guess is as good as mine. Often: attention. It's scarce.

<old>I see. So this restriction for NickServ is more a deterrent against rage and troll

<old>make sens

<nckx>I didn't set it, but that's why I might.

<dsmith-work>So what does "with the flags +v or +o within a channel" meean: https://libera.chat/guides/faq#flood-exemptions-for-bots

<dsmith-work>How are those set and who can set them?

<nckx>/msg chanserv flags #guile

<nckx>civodul & wingo.

<nckx>But since this is working around a bug of sorts, I'd chat with staff first.

<nckx>Not being subject to those limits might accidentally expose sneek to more severe anti-spam measures.

<spk121>civodul: for what it is worth, cannot reproduce your mem problem with the example on debbugs

<spk121>on fedora, tho

<civodul>sneek: later tell spk121 you don't see heap growth on https://issues.guix.gnu.org/59021 ?

<sneek>Got it.

<civodul>i'd be curious to see what others see

IRC channel logs

2022-11-04.log