User talk:Chris Pressey

From Esolang
Jump to: navigation, search

Combinatory Logic

In the content page on Combinatory Logic, of course you mean to say

"Each combinator is like a function or lambda abstraction, but without any FREE variables."

--r.e.s. (r dot s at mindspring dot com)

This should be on talk:Combinatory logic - I'll move it there. --Chris Pressey 00:17, 2 Jul 2005 (GMT)

Hi Chris!

I discovered this little gem of a wiki a few days ago, and had begun to wonder if you were here too. Good to see that you are! I've emailed you in the past, but don't know if you got them all. Have you seen my language Come Here (which I recall mentioning in one of them)? -- Smjg 00:09, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Don't get your expectations too high, Chris Pressey's last contribution to the wiki was about a year ago. --Ørjan 08:30, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I managed to misread the contributions list! Anyway, hope you'll be back. -- Smjg 19:02, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated ;) Old esoteric language designers never die, they just slow down exponentially...

Anyway, hi Smjg! I've finally found and replied to your e-mail. Yes, I've now seen Come Here (computed COME FROM does seem rather nasty since there's the question of when those computations should take place) though honestly I'm quite a bit more intrigued by your Quineless Language idea. I'll hopefully post my thoughts about it on your talk page in the near future. --Chris Pressey 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Circute has *GOT* to have a flipflop... [...] --Ben Russell 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be on talk:Circute. I've moved it there. --Chris Pressey 02:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Esoteric reading list

You forgot Laws of Form. —ehird 13:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Serial vandal

Ejuzarih is wreaking utter havoc right now. (I'm sending this to all the sysops so whoever gets this message first can block.) -- Smjg 00:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'm a sysop. (But I do like that term better than "admin"!) --Chris Pressey 19:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, correct me if I'm wrong but you deleted a page recently, which fits my definition of "sysop". —ehird 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed y'are: list of sysops. —ehird 00:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. I was not aware of that. --Chris Pressey 05:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't revert your edit

but I feel a bit weird about editing others' comments. I tend to refrain from it. Just noting. -- bleh, this ended up sounding dickish when I wrote it. You know what I mean. —ehird 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't; are you asking me to revert it myself? --Chris Pressey 05:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no, no. At first I was going to ask what you thought of editing other people's comments, but that (1) sounded hostile and (2) didn't really make much sense as a question. It is probably best if we just forget this ever happened. —ehird 14:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


I've recently had the urge to implement the catbus idea that you were throwing around a while ago. While I know that

$ catbus my-program 'nc 6667'

would connect my-program's stdin to nc's stdout, and nc's stdout to my-program's stdin, I'm unsure what

$ catbus prog1 prog2 prog3

should do. Is it that:

  • prog1 and prog2's stdout are forwarded to prog3's stdin;
  • prog2 and prog3's stdout are forwarded to prog1's stdin;
  • prog1 and prog3's stdout are forwarded to prog2's stdin

(where two things being forwarded to another mean that writes to either of the former two go to the latter)?

Thanks if you manage to inflict enough pain on yourself to work out the answer.

(BTW, we miss you in #esoteric, so if you ever feel like spending 23 hours of your day on IRC, and the other hour wondering where all your time has gone...) —ehird 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

<Phantom_Hoover> elliott, re your catbus question, it seems logical that they should be linked cyclically.
I am inclined to agree. —ehird 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've implemented that form and it's only 38 simple lines of C. If that is indeed how it was meant to operate, then I'll start packaging it up for release and whatnot. (Can I borrow your obviously-infinite webspace again? I still haven't gotten around to setting up a website...) —ehird 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just realised that with that interpretation, catbus a b c dcatbus 'a | b | c | d'; all catbus does is "tie" two ends of a pipe together. While this is very elegant, I don't think it was what you had in mind when you mentioned catbus; possibly it should be called "tie". In the interest of Unix pipe-fitters everywhere, I'd still like to know what catbus was intended to do. Log-grepping suggests that my original interpretation was correct. —ehird 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi ehird,
If you feel catbus is relevant to esolangs, please create an article for it and move this discussion there. If you don't, then using this wiki's resources for discussing it, could technically be considered spam; feel free to e-mail me any questions you might have. My e-mail address can be found on my website. Thanks, --Chris Pressey 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


You know that to be controversial, an opinion needs someone to agree with it, right? Preferably more than one person. --Ørjan (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Chris Pressey (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


Careful, or you will turn Mark Chu-Carroll against us! And then he might never do a /// feature... --Ørjan (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Pull Request

GitHub doesn't have private messaging anymore. So publically I ask: Could I get a response on this pull request? (I see it'd been a few years here, but never say die..) 19:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)