00:23:22 -!- CO2Games has joined. 00:51:18 -!- danopia_ has joined. 00:59:49 -!- danopia has quit (Nick collision from services.). 00:59:52 -!- danopia_ has changed nick to danopia. 01:10:23 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+"). 01:50:28 -!- danopia has quit (Connection timed out). 01:51:07 -!- pikhq_ has changed nick to pikhq. 01:51:15 -!- danopia has joined. 01:58:46 -!- Sgeo has joined. 02:29:00 -!- psygnisfive has joined. 02:29:35 :O 02:32:24 -!- psygnisf_ has joined. 02:32:39 -!- psygnisfive has quit (Client Quit). 02:35:54 -!- oerjan has quit ("Nothing to see here"). 02:37:20 -!- psygnisfive has joined. 02:51:15 -!- psygnisf_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 03:07:28 -!- psygnisfive has quit ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client"). 03:47:27 -!- hmetz has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:57:08 -!- cherez has joined. 03:57:59 -!- cherez has left (?). 05:00:37 -!- appletizer has joined. 05:07:00 -!- appletizer has left (?). 05:49:02 -!- optbot has set topic: the entire backlog of #esoteric: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | we can have nil = \x y -> y. 05:59:02 who here might be willing to write me a simple test program that utilizes all of the commands in this instruction set I made? 06:00:10 I'll take that as a nobody 06:37:03 Well, it's school time 06:37:04 So mehbe later 06:47:02 -!- danopia has quit (Read error: 101 (Network is unreachable)). 06:52:18 -!- danopia has joined. 07:02:11 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:15:03 -!- kar8nga has joined. 07:43:04 -!- kar8nga has left (?). 07:55:10 -!- danopia has quit (Network is unreachable). 07:55:50 -!- danopia has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 09:34:15 -!- Slereah_ has joined. 09:34:43 -!- slereah has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 10:56:05 -!- danopia_ has joined. 10:58:23 -!- danopia has quit (Read error: 101 (Network is unreachable)). 10:58:29 -!- danopia_ has changed nick to danopia. 11:49:02 -!- optbot has set topic: the entire backlog of #esoteric: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | but we originally (mists of time) come from Scotland. 11:51:06 hm that topic makes sense in the context of the first section 11:51:20 "the backlog, but we came from scotland", is that true? 11:51:43 it *almost* makes sense 11:54:02 Yes; the "mists of time" remark makes it sound like "but even before the backlog, though it says 'entire', there was the time when we came from Scotland". 11:54:53 fungot: Why don't you ever say anything clever like that? 11:54:53 fizzie: at least, it mostly works, but it 12:00:33 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection). 12:00:41 -!- puzzlet has joined. 12:09:22 mostly yeah 12:09:48 fizzie, how often do you update the language db for fungot with new logs? 12:09:49 AnMaster: yeah the first one 12:10:05 fungot, first what? 12:10:05 AnMaster: i understand f has an alternative syntax 12:10:19 fungot, what f? 12:10:20 AnMaster: are we allowed to submit an interpreter in basic and don't release the source 12:11:01 fungot, Interpreter for what? And also it sounds like a truly horrible idea to use BASIC for it anyway.... 12:11:01 AnMaster: i got the control wrong? 12:11:09 fungot, Control for what? 12:11:26 ^echo optbot 12:11:26 optbot optbot 12:11:27 AnMaster: amb(1,2,3) returns 1 2 or 3 12:11:27 fungot: good 12:11:27 optbot: yeah drscheme from debian package installed nicely but drscheme wont launch, complains about that? 12:11:29 fungot: :DD 12:11:29 optbot: thats worse than fnord 12:11:30 fungot: <3::=3<*3*; *3*3::=3*3*; *3*>::=3> 12:11:30 optbot: it's in the 12:11:31 fungot: How about have integer literals repeat? So + adds 1 to top of stack, and +9 adds ten. 12:11:32 optbot: works nicely enough in w3m, but i 12:11:32 fungot: It is suppose to give me a message that it knows the we are ~exec in somethine 12:11:55 worse than fnord? 12:11:58 *shudder* 12:17:49 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 12:18:53 -!- puzzlet has joined. 12:34:31 who here might be willing to write me a simple test program that utilizes all of the commands in this instruction set I made? 12:34:46 CO2Games: I'm busy right now, but I might try later depending on how easy it is 12:34:49 could you give me a link? 12:42:21 ais523, wasn't it he that made the bloated brainfuck based lang without support for nested loops? 12:42:29 though he fixed that iirc 12:42:33 not sure 12:42:53 still, BF-based langs are common ways to get into esoprogramming 12:42:58 even I wrote one 12:43:12 (I changed the semantics of [ and , to make the language reversible, not sure how usable the result is) 12:56:22 hi ehird 12:57:04 Hm 12:57:11 what will memcpy() do on size = 0 12:57:20 not sure, it might be undefined 12:57:26 if it isn't, almost certainly nothing 12:57:57 ais523, I can't find any mention in any man page about the behaviour at least 12:58:15 no mention = undefined 12:58:17 try looking at the C standard? 12:58:21 ais523, wasn't it he that made the bloated brainfuck based lang without support for nested loops? 12:58:24 also, yes, no mention = undefined 12:58:25 it was interesting, actually 12:58:46 and you don't need nested loops for TCness, one loop + if is enough 12:59:10 hmm... come to think of it, BF is probably Turing-complete with only two levels of nested [] 12:59:58 * AnMaster fixes that code 13:02:11 ais523, C99 makes no mention of it either 13:02:33 no mention = undefined, it's a general rule in that standard 13:02:52 The memcpy function copies n characters from the object pointed to by s2 into the 13:02:52 object pointed to by s1. If copying takes place between objects that overlap, the behavior 13:02:52 is undefined. 13:02:54 is all 13:03:11 ais523, however for n = 0 that should mean "copies 0 bytes" 13:03:22 so not sure if that counts as "no mention" 13:09:19 AnMaster 13:09:22 if you're not sure 13:09:23 and it's not mentioned 13:09:25 it's undefined 13:09:45 Hm. 13:09:48 I imagine he still has me on ignore. 13:10:00 ehird, depends on how you interpret 7.21.2.1.2 13:10:12 which was what I quoted above 13:10:17 AnMaster: in which numbering scheme? ISO's or ANSI's? 13:10:19 AnMaster: if you're not sure, or you think it's ambiguous, and it's not mentioned, it's undefined. 13:10:21 end 13:10:59 ais523, the section number in the pdf + paragraph number. File says "ISO/IEC 9899:TC3" 13:11:10 ah, ok, ISO numbering scheme 13:11:28 C standardisation is a bit stupid, as ANSI and ISO both put out identical standards except they numbered the sections differently 13:11:34 ais523, heh 13:11:36 which makes it very hard to cite part of the standard correctly... 13:12:22 ais523, this was the most uptodate version of the standard I could get hold of. I think it has some spelling corrections and similiar. Considering it is dated 2007 Sep 7. 13:12:41 yes 13:12:51 interestingly, the ones you get hold of are newer than the official published versions 13:13:02 ais523, hm? I think I found it using google 13:13:10 due to some crazy ISO copyright stuff, the official standards cost money and aren't legally online anywhere 13:13:11 it was a pain to find what seemed to be the right version 13:13:14 but all the drafts are published 13:13:14 and open 13:13:22 thus you most likely found the newest drafy 13:13:23 *draft 13:13:33 ais523, it was from ISO or IEEE or IEC website iirc 13:13:37 yes 13:13:41 or maybe open-std or whatever 13:13:43 due to the working group publishing them there 13:13:54 9899:TC3 is the third correction to C99, if I remember correctly 13:14:01 ais523, yes I think so 13:14:08 which will be incorporated into the next version of C if they ever put one out 13:14:46 ais523, however as far as I can tell compiler vendors such as GNU and Intel, seem to refer to last such correction version 13:15:06 pretty sure I saw references to that in both cases 13:15:28 i haaaaaaaate IEEE and ISO and all closed standards organizations 13:15:29 ffff 13:15:34 ehird, agreed 13:15:40 standards should be open 13:15:47 that is the point of a standard 13:16:07 you cant even get the fucking ISO date format standard without paying like $100 13:16:10 that's bullcrap. 13:16:19 yes, I share in your anger, both of you 13:18:01 also 13:18:02 Err is stddef.h C89, C99 or POSIX? 13:18:02 iso dates 13:18:05 actually kinda suck: 13:18:12 2008-W40-5 13:18:13 W = week number. 13:18:14 seriously. 13:18:16 what the christ. 13:18:34 AnMaster: headers really need manpages... 13:18:39 AnMaster: can't remember off the top of my head 13:18:49 also 13:18:51 what ISO idiot 13:18:56 decied that 'T' was a good separator 13:18:58 ehird, it got one here, but it doesn't say where it comes from 13:19:09 T just makes it impossible to make out the day from the time 13:19:42 2008-W40-5 <-- Y10K.... 13:19:59 and if you want to avoid months, just use "day of year" or something 13:20:01 AnMaster: Yes, ISO 8601 doesn't support more than 4 digits to a year. 13:20:15 AnMaster: But the example I pasted: valid iso 8601 date 13:20:16 though both week and day of year seriously fuck up on leap years 13:20:20 However 13:20:27 so month is pretty sane 13:20:28 I don't give a shit about the Y10K problem. 13:20:41 ehird, heh ok 13:20:43 too far off 13:20:43 well, it's maybe not a problem when referring to now 13:20:51 we won't ever need more than 640 KB RAM either 13:20:53 Yes, software from the 1970s should be made to work in 2000. 13:20:55 but Y10K is certainly a problem when referring to things that will happen in the far future 13:20:59 (2038 is a reasonable problem) 13:21:02 but 13:21:11 think about how far Y10K is away 13:21:15 and think about in history 13:21:18 the progression of technology 13:21:21 what if your lifespan was 10000 years? 13:21:21 also moore's law 13:21:21 very near on geological scales 13:21:25 and...y10k is bullshit 13:21:25 then would you worry? 13:21:32 also, half the date formats I see have a Y1BC problem 13:21:33 AnMaster: Yes, but it's not. 13:21:47 ais523, Y1BC? 13:21:48 and dates BC are certainly within the scope of things that people might want to refer to 13:21:50 oh 13:21:50 right 13:21:58 -!- oerjan has joined. 13:22:02 you mean 0/1 problem 13:22:03 hmm 13:22:06 which is plain messy 13:22:07 AnMaster: i think that's a new kind of fallacy 13:22:25 "You don't think X? Well, what about ? Would you think X then?" 13:23:01 ehird, it is a philosophical construct for exploring your mind or something 13:23:02 ;P 13:23:07 AnMaster: Deeeeeep. 13:23:11 AnMaster: not just that, try writing, say 15 March 4 BC in ISO format 13:23:19 there isn't an obvious way to do it 13:23:22 * ehird considers making all his programs test for >= Y10K 13:23:25 and yes, 0/1 is messy too 13:23:29 ais523, Well, the calender changed since then 13:23:29 soo 13:23:35 what calender 13:23:35 and if so, print "Why the fuck are you using this outdated piece of shit, seriously, it's thousands of years old!" 13:23:36 ehird: also test for more than 30 days in September 13:23:40 "8 thousand or so years old!" 13:23:42 "Christ!" 13:23:50 AnMaster: hmm... the one they were using at the time, so Julian, I reckon 13:24:04 ais523, what about other cultures? 13:24:16 Why so centered on Europe? 13:24:19 and there was a big row at Wikipedia about autoformatting dates, because they claimed that reformatting a date implies a different calendar 13:24:20 what about China? 13:24:29 AnMaster: well the date I used was significant in Roman history if I have my dates right 13:24:44 and taking the format in China would make more sense if I had used a Chinese date format to start with 13:24:48 but yes, I agree with you 13:25:31 ais523, + they didn't use leapyears for a long time, so you would have to consider that too 13:25:40 probably 13:25:50 back then they definitely used leapyears 13:25:54 but 1 every 4 years 13:25:58 no corrections for centuries 13:26:05 ais523, ah right. 13:26:12 this explains why the extra day was added to February 13:26:18 because for ages it was the last month of the year 13:26:32 I'm not entirely sure why or when new year moved from March 1 to January 1 13:26:37 anyway considering when a date more than maybe 100-200 years old actually *was* is just too painful 13:26:52 this is why proleptic Gregorian was invented, I think 13:26:55 ais523, what weekday was it for example? 13:27:06 it's the current calendar, but projected backwards through time 13:27:09 which as far as I understand it, you need for ISO format 13:27:10 right? 13:27:15 ais523: you don't mean 15 March 44 BC? 13:27:17 and yes, probably 13:27:21 oerjan: yes, that was it 13:27:31 I knew there was something wrong with it, just wasn't sure what... 13:27:51 the 15 March itself is enough of a clue there :) 13:27:58 yes 13:27:59 ais523, it would have been different, iirc the romans moved the point of their new year once in their history at least. No idea when that was 13:28:05 but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere 13:28:34 could have been earlier or later 13:28:37 I'm not entirely sure why or when new year moved from March 1 to January 1 13:28:49 its quite odd 13:28:53 ehird, ah thanks, must have missed that line 13:28:55 shouldnt the start of the year be the start of a season, really 13:29:00 and I think I heard the reason 13:29:09 i mean... 13:29:14 year starting in december would make sense 13:29:20 something about having time to prepare for wars after elections 13:29:22 or such 13:29:34 ehird, why December? that is the middle of the winter 13:29:39 no not the middle 13:29:42 but well in it 13:29:49 far from the start of the season 13:30:05 wait 13:30:12 AnMaster: what are the swedish seasons 13:30:20 see, i forgot to think 13:30:25 that other countries had different seasons :-P 13:30:51 ehird: what about it? 13:30:54 AnMaster: winter solstice 13:30:59 ais523: wat 13:31:03 well, mostly the northern hemisphere has one set, the southern hemisphere has the opposite, and places near the equator are weird 13:31:03 ehird, spring (vår), summer (sommar), autumn (höst), winter (vinter) 13:31:08 but there are lots of exceptions 13:31:09 or what did you mean? 13:31:13 it's logical to start on a solstice or equinox 13:31:19 AnMaster: same months, then, ok, it's probably my fault 13:31:19 oerjan, yes 13:31:22 its early 13:31:23 [CTCP] Received CTCP-PING reply from ais523: 119 seconds. 13:31:25 not bad! 13:31:28 ehird, well months are mostly the same too 13:31:33 what months are in winter this hemisphere... 13:31:37 i was thinking it started in december 13:31:40 * ehird is tired, confused, bla 13:31:45 ehird, depends on how far north you are 13:31:51 * ehird nods 13:32:10 which, i think, explains why start of a season is a crap year start point 13:32:11 :-p 13:32:26 if you define winter based on mean temperature. Which iirc is the the basis for the official definitions used in Sweden 13:32:49 something like Spring when mean temperature have been over x degrees for at least y days in a row 13:32:56 don't know exact values 13:33:23 (so even if it get colder just a few days later, it is still spring then) 13:33:28 winter here starts in december 13:33:31 not december 1 though obviously 13:33:34 in the UK they have a whole television series dedicated to trying to determine when Spring starts by watching the behaviour of the wildlife 13:33:50 ais523: haha, i haven't heard of that 13:33:56 ehird, well the temperature for winter usually happens in middle of November or earlier 13:34:08 with people sending in evidence from over the country 13:34:14 well its october right now, and i'm freezing :-) 13:34:14 here that is 13:34:15 although mostly it's just an excuse to show cute pictures of baby foxes and such 13:34:18 ehird, so am I 13:34:26 but still just autumn iirc 13:34:33 yea 13:34:46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_(season)#Definition_of_spring 13:34:58 ehird: I'm surprised you missed it, they generally advertise it furiously in the weather programs on the BBC during March 13:35:10 ais523: i don't generally watch all that much tv 13:35:15 ah, ok 13:35:18 wtf, "Summer" have a "popular culture" section 13:35:20 that's insane 13:35:20 I mostly watch it for the theme music 13:35:21 hehe 13:35:32 has* 13:35:33 ais523: you still haven't named it, i may have heard of it in the back of my mind :-) 13:35:35 but forgotten about it 13:35:38 AnMaster: everything on Wikipedia has a popular culture section or will have one eventually, it's one of the Rules of the Internet 13:35:44 ehird: Springwatch 13:35:51 ahh, that thing 13:36:01 yeah, i knew of it but forgotten 13:36:14 ais523, it is easy in Sweden, since it is officially defined based on mean temperature 13:36:24 ais523: is that the official story though, it's trying to figure out the start of spring? 13:36:26 hahahahah 13:36:28 ais523: i vaguely recall an xkcd on that 13:36:31 yes, it is the official story 13:36:33 "SMHI definierar vår som när dygnsmedeltemperaturen är stigande och över noll grader i minst sju dagar." 13:36:38 translation shortly 13:36:49 but as I said it's mostly an excuse to show cute wildlife pictures 13:38:37 "The first month of the year continued to be Ianuarius, as it had been since 153 BC." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar 13:38:42 SMHI (Swedish Met office basically) defines spring as: when the mean temperature of the full-24 hour period (don't know English word, in Swedish dag indicates the 12 hours the sun is up, but dygn the full 24 hours) is increasing and is over 0 degrees for at least 7 days in a row 13:39:01 oerjan: ok, so it was a pretty old change 13:39:02 would really like to know the name for 24 hour period in English, I assume there is one 13:39:15 assuming day is just the 12 "non-night" hours 13:39:27 if it isn't then what is the name for just that part 13:39:32 ais523, ^ 13:39:43 AnMaster: they're both called "day" 13:39:45 which is really confusing 13:39:52 ais523, how confusing indeed 13:39:52 occasionally you have to say which you mean 13:40:33 ais523, anyway is there no such easy definition of spring in UK? 13:40:46 no, I don't think so 13:40:55 there are similar ones for the other seasons 13:41:09 day is 24 hours to me 13:41:16 but "today" means: 13:41:24 if it's day, -> this day 13:41:28 if it's night, -> following day 13:41:33 (where day in that definition means 12 hours) 13:41:42 it's only confusing if you think about it. 13:42:02 ah the summer definition is when it is over 10 degrees for 7 days in a row 13:42:10 http://xkcd.com/446/ was it 13:42:16 10 degrees, lol 13:42:24 you poor cold swedes :} 13:42:28 ehird, in north sweden that is reasonable 13:42:48 however where I live it is mostly 18-25 or so during the summer holidays 13:42:58 it's recently dipped below 10 C here 13:42:59 at least in July and August 13:43:06 oerjan, did that a few weeks ago here 13:43:21 maybe a couple weeks 13:44:42 9 today, says yr.no 13:44:54 idea 13:45:16 someone write an esolang for composing music (kind of an anti-fuge, i guess) 13:45:17 then 13:45:24 set some base characteristics about music 13:45:24 then 13:45:32 divide it into seperate parts for people 13:45:39 and we each write a program 13:45:42 and then they're stuck together 13:45:42 oerjan, what is the Norwegian equivalent for SHMI btw? 13:45:46 and that is #esoteric's anthem 13:45:53 what does SHMI stand for 13:45:59 ah 13:46:03 "Sveriges meteorologiska och hydrologiska institut" 13:46:20 "Meteorologisk institutt" in norway too 13:46:45 (that website is from them btw) 13:47:09 according to Swedish wikipedia, they also do oceanography stuff 13:47:19 although they compete with Storm Weather Center 13:48:08 oerjan, btw how is "yr.no" an abbreviation for "Meteorologisk institutt"..? I don't get it 13:48:31 it's not their main website 13:48:40 why yr.no though.. 13:48:43 it's a site they operate together with NRK 13:48:59 yr = er, wait a second 13:49:25 NRK is like SVT + SR right? 13:49:36 "drizzle", i think 13:49:37 (or for the UK ppl here: Like BBC) 13:49:43 AnMaster: yeah 13:50:12 -!- moozilla has quit (Connection timed out). 13:50:14 oerjan, "drizzle"? What is the Norwegian word for that? 13:50:20 "yr" :D 13:50:25 oh 13:50:26 right 13:50:51 hmm... there must be even more drizzle in Norway than there is in the UK for it to have a short name like that 13:50:52 read that as abbreviation... so I thought it was the y part only 13:51:11 haha 13:51:13 yr = drizzle 13:51:20 what a waste of a two letter word 13:51:21 don't know if there's a backronym for it 13:51:44 oerjan, intersting the Swedish word "yr" means vertigo 13:51:58 that's "r" in norwegian 13:52:03 and I suggest ais523 doesn't try to read something into *that* 13:52:05 well, the adjective 13:52:11 AnMaster: heh 13:52:34 actually "yr" also has another meaning which is slightly close 13:53:04 oerjan, hm yrsel would be the noun vertigo I think. 13:53:22 yr is indeed adjective in Swedish too 13:53:29 oerjan, also was that ör btw? 13:53:32 vertigo...ry? 13:53:36 how is vertigo an adjective 13:53:37 AnMaster: o with slash 13:54:17 "yr" also means "wild" 13:54:21 oerjan, I think "ör" in Swedish have something to do with fishing, though I may very well be confusing it with some similar word. Fishing never really interested me 13:54:35 oerjan, ah yes you can be "yr av glädje" in Swedish as well 13:54:55 which is not same yr as "yr av att stå i toppen på ett torn och titta ned" 13:55:29 cannot find "r" in swedish wiktionary 13:55:40 oerjan, may be dialect then 13:56:11 Swedish wikipedia says it is a place name 13:56:12 hm 13:56:17 well that too 13:57:30 actually there's a norwegian fish known as "uer", pronounced "ur" in my dialect at least 13:57:31 hm apperently I was wrong, it is an old word, still found in placenames: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_ortnamns%C3%A4ndelser#-.C3.B6r 13:57:41 oerjan, that may in fact be öring? 13:57:43 or whatever 13:57:44 also, "rret" = "trout" 13:57:55 trout, no clue what that is in Swedish 13:58:01 I probably know the Swedish word 13:58:08 I just don't know which one it actually is 13:58:08 that's ring 13:58:14 oerjan, oh 13:58:36 or wait 13:58:47 "salmon trout" 13:59:32 apparently there are several "trouts" 13:59:48 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trout 14:00:06 also, a favorite fish for slapping people with 14:00:09 well, it's not exactly an endangered specie 14:00:13 *species 14:00:18 -!- oklocod has changed nick to oklopol. 14:00:27 i don't want a trout vs. cod joke. 14:00:29 oklopol: trying to be less fishy? 14:00:49 :P 14:00:56 trout vs. cod? 14:00:57 eh 14:00:58 you can't use that joke forever 14:00:58 what? 14:01:12 "uer" = "redfish" in english i believe 14:01:14 AnMaster: well aren't they like fisherizers? 14:01:22 * AnMaster googles fisherizers 14:01:30 one hit 14:01:38 1. Lists (PondTasksRemaining) - View All Lists Edit List Item Web ... 14:01:44 oh what the heck 14:02:09 oerjan, doesn't seem related 14:02:22 i'm not quite sure 14:02:45 uer = "Sebastes marinus" 14:02:51 fisherizers are fish 14:02:59 i thinking going via latin is the safest way of getting the terms correct 14:03:20 ring = "Salmo Trutta" 14:03:57 ah, "rose fish" the first 14:04:24 we would probably have all these cool fish names if the normans didn't invade :( 14:05:20 that redfish article is messed up 14:06:29 some vandalism 14:14:35 ssssss 14:14:54 * oerjan watches in horror as ehird turns into a snake 14:15:00 SSSSSSSSSSSsssssssssssss!!! 14:15:03 SSSSsssssssssssSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!! 14:15:08 * ehird spits poison at oerjan 14:15:09 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 14:15:22 note to self: stop encouraging ehird :D 14:15:26 * ehird decides poison is too slow-acting 14:15:32 * ehird gobbles up oerjan 14:15:35 *gulp* 14:15:37 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 14:15:52 * oerjan digs himself out ---|) 14:16:06 * ehird eats his own stomach to stop oerjan 14:16:07 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 14:16:41 * oerjan watches in horror as ehird turns into a singularity by eating himself 14:16:55 MWAHAHAH- I mean, SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 14:18:15 * oerjan buys an antidote on ebay 14:18:37 fortunately this is very slow poison 14:19:03 * ehird cuts ethernet cable 14:19:06 >:D 14:19:07 SSSSSSSSSS 14:19:34 * oerjan curses his landlady for not getting the wireless fixed 14:21:55 don't tell me i have to do something drastic like walking outside to a pharmacy 14:22:30 just buy them on the way to the bus 14:22:53 there are no shops between here and the bus stop 14:23:02 oerjan: how can you walk outside 14:23:05 i've eaten you 14:23:11 did you know one of your things is you need to hurry to get into the bus in time? 14:23:11 er 14:23:13 i mean... 14:23:15 SSSSSSSSSSSSSsssssssssssSSSSSS 14:24:16 oklopol: you mean, i don't log off until i have to leave. that's different. 14:24:51 oerjan: but you need to get in the bus. the hurrying isn't the point i guess. 14:25:19 if i'm _really_ in a hurry for a given bus i usually wait until the next bus 14:25:53 usually because i didn't manage to tear myself off the computer 14:25:55 but you still need to get in the bus :P it's your thing 14:26:06 ok ok 14:26:15 for a certain value of "need" 14:27:09 there _used_ to be a grocery shop next to the bus stop, but they tore it down and built a home for the elderly 14:27:21 oerjan: Stop talking. I have eaten you. 14:27:34 hi ais523 14:27:42 and without my cell phone too 14:27:44 oerjan: okay, perhaps your thing is just mentioning the bus occasionally? it's just that's a bit more boring. 14:28:48 * oerjan resigns to being digested 14:29:32 * ehird gives oerjan a laptop 14:29:47 Go hack in to the firewall mainframe IP with visual basic. 14:29:54 You can route the DLL past my stomach walls. 14:29:57 SSSSSSSSSSSssssssss 14:30:17 visual basic? i think i prefer death. 14:30:21 * oerjan ducks 14:30:35 * ehird watches his stomach acids nibble at oerjan's fingers 14:30:46 also i don't think i ever claimed to be that kind of hacker 14:30:57 or much of any kind of hacker, really 14:31:08 Bah. 14:31:13 * ehird opens the door to his stomach. 14:31:21 Ther's the boring way out. 14:31:23 * oerjan rolls out 14:31:32 * ehird figurse out what to do with his singularity. 14:31:36 ... 14:31:37 eat it! 14:31:38 * ehird eats it 14:31:43 Mm. 14:31:45 Infinitely wholesome. 14:31:49 LHC eat your heart out 14:32:48 if our society were based on magic, the LHC might actually have _had_ a heart 14:33:39 and probably been an acronym for something else 14:33:54 Living Hell Converter or something 14:39:11 So. 14:39:46 -!- AnMaster has quit ("Thunderstorm"). 14:41:56 Legendary Hat Collector 14:42:58 i think it's not much more than it was before it was what it now is it now? 14:43:42 * oerjan refuses to believe oklopol is trying to make sense 14:44:32 well what to refuse when you're being asked and if they think they already know then what can you do really i don't think anything much what do you think? 14:45:06 i don't, definitely not what it thinks they are. 14:45:28 encyclopedia of algorithms, that's one sexy book 14:45:38 it's like condensed sex 14:45:44 only algorithms 14:50:10 oklopol, you are perverted 14:50:16 Does bubble sorting make you hard? 14:51:05 only merge sort i would imagine 14:51:23 maybe also heap sort 14:51:45 i like heap sort and mergesort better than quicksort at least 14:51:58 but can't say i don't enjoy bubble sort as well 14:54:20 What about bogosorting? 14:54:23 Are you into that? 14:54:30 It's okay, nothing to be ashamed about 15:08:11 not particularlyy 15:08:33 *particularly 15:08:41 i'm not that interested in sorting altogether 15:08:48 those finns and their double vowels 15:12:44 mse 15:14:57 Today on the "Paths that make me RAGE" channel: 15:15:00 /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.5/lib/python2.5/site-packages/ 15:39:04 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7650103.stm 15:39:50 "Medicine: Dan Ariely for demonstrating that expensive fake medicine is more effective than cheap fake medicine." 15:40:10 xDDDDD 16:07:14 -!- Ilari has joined. 16:22:33 -!- sebbu has joined. 16:28:33 hmm... anyone here know any lazy imperative languages? 16:28:49 -!- Hiato has joined. 16:28:56 hi Hiato 16:29:16 hey ais523 16:29:32 what's cooking? 16:29:32 * ais523 is idling and saying hi to people in the hope of starting a conversation 16:29:49 and working on an insane project for University which many would consider esolang-related 16:30:59 :o 16:31:10 quite 16:31:27 that's why I asked if anyone knew of any lazy imperative languages earlier 16:31:42 i think those would be esoteric by definition 16:31:58 well, there's one involved in my University project 16:32:01 sane laziness requires purity, imperativeness is the opposite of purity 16:32:13 but it acts like an eager language really 16:32:33 we're implementing it by compiling into a functional lanugage 16:32:42 with variables stored in what is similar to a State monad 16:32:58 commands happen eagerly due to the monad-chains, it's just expressions that are lazy 16:33:18 -!- LinuS has joined. 16:33:33 ic so a language with strict distinction betwen commands and expressions might work 16:33:50 aka haskell, really :D 16:34:29 someone said haskell is the world's finest imperative language 16:34:44 yes, the language reminds me of a language which is Haskell really 16:34:48 just disguised as Algol 16:35:38 also, my experiences with it, and other experiences with brainfuck, convince me that reading the value of a variable is not as fundamental an operation as was first thought 16:35:42 Simon Peyton-Jones, apparently 16:35:52 in brainfuck, reading the value of a variable sets it to 0, in most cases 16:36:01 thus you have to be clever to duplicate a variable's value 16:36:15 hardware compilation has the same problem, but with functions 16:36:30 if you call a function more than once, you need some way to return the result to the right physical location 16:36:45 and if you call a function more than once simultaneously, you need two physical copies of the function 16:38:06 does all this sound esoteric enough for this channel? 16:38:16 yeah 16:38:41 aaaaaaaaaaaaafssfggjtykuyiliuio;;;opp;p;pp;p;p;;p;p;ikkhbnfcccdregrjukuyllikjujugtfrdeddfrghhhjjhugyfgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgdgddgdgdgdgdgdgddddd 16:38:42 ^ discuss 16:39:12 ehird: i thought you were 13, not 3 16:39:25 oerjan: oh, that 1 was a typo 16:39:30 3 year olds can't type very well 16:39:37 butt 16:39:40 probably 16:40:03 those french and their double consonants 16:41:31 there is actually remarkably little keyboard repetition in that 16:41:56 mostly at the ends 16:42:51 also, you have failed to provide a semantics for your language 16:43:12 I don't know the semantics or the syntax of the language in question yet 16:43:14 just the paradigm 16:43:19 i was speaking to ehird :D 16:43:24 yes, I guessed 16:43:35 also, what's the name for the paradigm VHDL uses? 16:43:39 I can't remember 16:43:42 VHDLy 16:45:11 brrrrrrrrrrr 16:45:14 freeeeeeeeeeeezing 16:45:18 "Hardware description languages" is in the category list 16:51:35 -!- Hiato has quit ("Leaving."). 17:18:45 -!- jix has joined. 17:19:46 -!- Sgeo has joined. 17:20:32 * ais523 ponders what a fully functional hardware description language would be like 17:23:11 Well, I am fully functional. 17:23:16 And trained in many techniques. 17:23:22 heh 17:23:26 Also, what about the Lisp machines? 17:23:29 are you a hardware description language? 17:23:38 but yes, Lisp machines are interesting 17:23:45 they're functional hardware interpreters, though 17:23:57 Hurray, I don't know the difference! :D 17:23:57 I'm wondering if it's possible to /compile/ a functional program into hardware 17:24:05 Oh. 17:24:14 I thought that's what Lisp machines did. 17:24:22 no, they run Lisp nativelt 17:24:23 *natively 17:24:28 that's an interpreter, not a compiler 17:24:37 hardware compilation produces a piece of hardware that only runs one program 17:25:12 Isn't the very fact of writing the program on a lisp machine kinda compiling it? 17:25:19 Like writing machine code on a usual computer 17:25:35 well, a Lisp machine has lisp as its machine code 17:26:00 Yes. 17:28:28 ais523: wrong. 17:28:33 about what? 17:28:35 Lisp machines? 17:28:42 certainly they were capable of running more than one program 17:28:42 'a lisp machine has lisp as its machine code' 17:28:52 which makes them interps 17:29:13 even in imperative languages, an x86 processor (for instance) is an interpreter for x86 machine language 17:29:30 hardware compilation goes a step further, you start with a program and end up with a piece of hardware which runs only that program 17:30:12 Isn't it more like a piece of code on the hardware? 17:30:28 Slereah_: what, Lisp machines, x86, or hardware compilation? 17:31:06 I'm getting confused 17:31:15 I should go back to watching this Batman reveiw 17:39:55 -!- Mony has joined. 17:41:27 plop 17:42:00 Hulo tharn french people 17:49:02 -!- optbot has set topic: the entire backlog of #esoteric: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | ~exec self.raw("PRIVMSG #esoteric :%r" % (math.exp(math.pi)**1j)). 17:54:40 -!- AnMaster has joined. 18:11:36 hm this computer's inside really makes no sense... 18:13:11 like that main connector thing for the mobo, huge unruly thing normally even. But here the connector is mounted such that the cable is resting against the cpu heatsink to reach the contact. there is no other way 18:13:20 wtf did whoever built this computer think? 18:14:26 (constrast with the dell close to it, while it's inside is pretty strange, it is all very organised, and easy to service 18:28:16 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 18:40:37 AnMaster: Re fungot's language model, I haven't bothered to update it at all with new logs yet. 18:40:38 fizzie: never heard of it before and after it now 18:45:40 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 18:48:07 fungot: what, you have anterograde amnesia? how awful! 18:48:08 oerjan: i'm starting to think there's no way it could conceivably be interpreted as ellipsis for the internal macro, which *is* a function. 18:51:13 a person who can only remember the future would rock 18:51:41 iirc Merlin did that in some legends or books 18:52:34 oerjan: hmm 18:52:46 so you could remember your teachings, you would have to have been taught some time in the future 18:52:47 BUT 18:52:52 you'll immediately forget your teaching as soon as you recieve it 18:53:00 so: you need to be taught in your craft on your deathbed 18:53:31 for added weirdness, also age backwards 18:53:58 -!- kar8nga has joined. 18:58:03 -!- sebbu has quit (Connection timed out). 18:58:04 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 18:59:20 -!- psygnisfive has joined. 18:59:23 mm lovely 18:59:40 guys i discovered something interesting about english syntax/semantics that might be interesting in an esolang :o 18:59:52 it's insane? 19:00:05 :P 19:00:06 but we all knew that already! 19:00:22 english has disjunction scope quantifiers. :o 19:00:25 er 19:00:27 not quantifiers 19:00:28 indicators 19:00:42 [citation needed] 19:00:58 consider: 19:01:15 John is looking for a fedora or a bowler 19:01:18 this could mean either 19:01:49 John is looking for some hat X | (X is-a fedora) or (X is-a bowler) 19:01:56 or it could mean 19:02:12 Fedoras are bettar 19:02:22 (John is looking for some hat X | X is-a fedora) or (John is looking for some hat X | X is-a bowler) 19:02:34 what's the difference?' 19:02:47 the difference is that in the first one 19:02:52 john is just looking for a hat 19:02:58 and the hat can be a fedora 19:03:01 oh, right 19:03:02 or it can be a bowler 19:03:05 he'd be happy with either 19:03:10 he just needs one or the other 19:03:13 in the SECONd however 19:03:20 he wants a specific kind of hat 19:03:25 only one kind of hat 19:03:28 but the speaker doesn't know which 19:03:30 yeah 19:03:33 right 19:03:42 so the disjunction has two different scopes 19:03:52 in one it has scope over the lower predication 19:04:00 fedora(x) | bowler(x) 19:04:15 while in th other it has scope over the whole statement 19:04:40 (seeks(John, x) & fedora(x)) | (seeks(John, x) & bowler(x)) 19:05:10 seeks(John, x) & (fedora(x) | bowler(x)) 19:05:23 but now consider what happens when we introduce "either" 19:05:30 John is looking for either a fedora or a bowler 19:05:36 here we still have both potential readings 19:05:54 "John is looking for either a fedora or a bowler and he doesn't care which" 19:05:59 "John is looking for either a fedora or a bowler and I know know which" 19:06:01 but but but! 19:06:10 and and and and 19:06:13 Either John is looking for a fedora or a bowler 19:06:20 this ONLY has the higher scope reading! 19:06:32 "Either John is looking for a fedora or a bowler, and he doesn't care which" == BAD 19:06:42 yes 19:06:43 "Either John is looking for a fedora or a bowler and I don't remember which" == FINE 19:07:05 so "either" can be used to force higher scope readings by placing it further left in the structure of the sentence 19:07:07 :o 19:07:14 that's actually quite an interesting scoping ambiguity 19:07:20 yeah 19:07:22 it totally is 19:07:32 there should be more ambiguity in programming languages 19:07:33 theres lots of crazy scope stuff like that in languages 19:07:49 there should more ambiguity with cool ambiguity resolution techniques 19:07:55 cise is really the only language i can think of where there's any ambiguity 19:08:09 we need a language where you have a disjunctive or, but you also have an or-scope indicator 19:08:24 oklopol: lexing Cyclexa 19:08:34 but it has precedence rules to resolve the ambiguity 19:08:57 theres also some cool scope stuff regarding question words 19:09:08 ais523: precedence rules aren't really distinct from just unambiguous parsing 19:09:09 for instance, in english 19:09:20 in cise, you may need to reparse at runtime, if types change 19:09:25 well, there's more than one way to tokenise things 19:09:25 oklopol: perl has some ambiguity in its syntax afair 19:09:30 but it's done statically 19:09:35 "what did john buy" has the reading "for what x's, john bought x" 19:09:39 in Cyclexa, anyway 19:09:52 in Perl there's more than one way to interpret some of the tokens 19:09:59 and which is chosen can vary at BEGIN-time 19:10:12 begin-time? 19:10:15 with the result that parsing Perl in finite time is impossible 19:10:18 i don't know shit about perl 19:10:20 and "who bought a hat" has the reading "for what people x, x bought a hat" 19:10:27 psygnisfive: yes 19:10:28 but what if you have two wh-phrases? 19:10:39 oklopol: you can set code that runs before the rest of the code is parsed 19:10:43 "who bought what" reads as "for what x and what y, x bought y" 19:11:06 so NORMALLY if you want scope over the sentence, you raise the WH phrase to the top/beginning of the sentence 19:11:21 but with two or more WH phrases, one has to remain low, and it STILL gets scope 19:11:53 hungarian, bulgarian, and serbocroatian, on the other hand, REQUIRE that you raise the WH phrases to get scope with them 19:11:54 psygnisfive: who bought, and what? 19:12:00 well i think it's just convention, because you *can* do "you bought what?" it's just that has quite a strongly emphasizing connotation on the what 19:12:06 hmm 19:12:09 "who bought, and what" is completely ungrammatical, oerjan :p 19:12:23 psygnisfive: no it isn't 19:12:24 oklopol: "you bought what?" is actually not g enerally a question 19:12:24 like 19:12:39 oerjan, yes it is. 19:12:47 oklopol: you're not just asking what the person bought 19:12:52 you're asking for CONFIRMATION of what you heard 19:13:09 "you bought WHAT? a COCKRING? no!" 19:13:27 psygnisfive: it's still a question 19:13:30 sure 19:13:38 but its a different kind of question 19:13:41 called an echo question 19:14:05 where you're not asking for new information but rather asking for a repetition of the phrase targeted by the WH replacement 19:14:12 that's true. 19:14:41 and similarly, you'd never ask "what did you buy?" when you want confirmation or repetition 19:14:43 ^echo what? 19:14:43 what? what? 19:14:44 but i don't find this that interesting 19:14:44 you'd sound deaf 19:14:48 "I bought a hat!" 19:14:53 "What did you buy?" 19:14:57 well, you could, actually 19:15:01 you'd just need special intonation 19:15:06 yes 19:15:16 but its not normal question intonation 19:15:26 its the same intonaiton on "what" in both echo questions 19:15:27 anyway 19:15:35 thats not what i meant to talk about :p 19:15:43 i see 19:15:54 there are interesting cases in english where scope can be pulled from a REALLY deeply embedded element 19:15:55 consider: 19:17:04 i will consider, although briefly 19:17:10 gumme a sec :p 19:17:19 i forgot the examples 19:17:31 only had time to read like 20 pages yesterday, so my quota for today is enough to keep me awake all night 19:17:48 do not consider, lest ye be considered 19:17:50 i don't want to slip from my 500p/week minimum 19:18:26 'ok consider: 19:18:42 *what* does John think [mary bought t] 19:18:48 where t indicates what *what* targets 19:19:00 e.g. for what X, John thinks [mary bought x] 19:19:17 now consider: 19:19:37 BAD: John thinks [*what* mary bought t] 19:19:42 but on the other hand: 19:19:49 John wonders [*what* mary bought t] 19:20:02 BAD: *what* does John wonder [Mary bought t] 19:20:29 that's just normal nesting 19:20:39 sure 19:20:42 in english it makes sense right 19:20:43 "what mary bought" there is a question embedded 19:20:50 yes it is! 19:20:54 yes! 19:21:01 but now check this out from chinese: 19:21:05 i'm probably missing your point 19:21:08 i will 19:21:13 well you need to see the chinese too ;) 19:21:20 ah 19:21:22 okily doc 19:21:32 keep in mind, chinese does NOT have any movement, so all the *what* phrases are in their original positions 19:21:34 it's all martian to me 19:21:38 glossing the chinese: 19:22:10 Zhangsan thinks [Lisi bought *what*] == *what* does Zhangsan think Lisi bought *t* 19:22:28 Zhangsan wonders [Lisi bought *what*] == Zhangsan wonders [*what* Lisi bought *t*] 19:22:42 the lower clauses are IDENTICAL in chinese 19:22:47 You and your linguistics. 19:22:53 psygnisfive: that's not all that interesting 19:23:10 but the verb specifies whether or not the lower clause can be interpreted as a question or a statement clause 19:23:12 question particles just happen to be context-insensitive, and can jump multiple levels up 19:23:14 hmm 19:23:19 oh 19:23:21 and thus BECAUSE the verb specifies this 19:23:26 if there IS a WH-phrase in the lower clause 19:23:41 the VERB decides whether or not the sentence AS A WHOLE is a question, or a statement. 19:23:56 that's actually quite an interesting type theoretical issue 19:24:19 simply because the verb specifies only one kind of clausal complement, and if there's a WH-phrase in that clausal complement, you can only interpret it one what, given the verb 19:24:20 its funky 19:24:20 :D 19:24:22 so how do you ask in chinese what someone is wondering about? :D 19:24:32 X wonders what 19:24:35 you wonder what 19:24:35 :P 19:24:56 but that's a *what* that targets the ENTIRE clausal complement 19:25:00 not something INSIDE the clausal complement 19:25:31 oerjan: it's a different issue how you ask what someone is wondering someone else bought 19:25:36 hmm 19:25:48 i think i failed to construct that 19:25:49 theres actually all sorts of really weird stuff that goes on with WH phrases 19:25:59 oklopol: yes you did 19:26:30 but you did so for precisely the same reasons we were just talking about :) 19:26:34 wonder takes a question phrase 19:26:45 a question clausal complement 19:26:57 psygnisfive: how do you say that? 19:27:02 and so that what, as in "ask *what* someone is wondering someone else bought" is a violation 19:27:04 it's not exactly something you ever need to ask 19:27:05 i mean, just look: 19:27:22 ask [*what* someone is wondering [someone else bought *t*]] 19:27:28 that's a violation as we pointed out earlier! :) 19:27:51 exact same violation as "*what* does john wonder [Mary bought *t*]" 19:27:52 well you gotta be able to ask that somehow 19:28:01 yes, you can ask, but periphrastically 19:28:11 but you can do it with two questions intermingled 19:28:11 and actually i think that's perfect english 19:28:17 oerjan: tru 19:28:22 oklopol, its not perfect english :p 19:28:25 its HORRIBLE english 19:28:37 psygnisfive: give me a better construction for it, will you? 19:28:39 but you're not native, you don't have these intuitions about english 19:28:42 what are you wondering whether i bought 19:28:47 that is not horrible english psygnisfive 19:28:50 horrible oerjan 19:28:53 -!- LinuS has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 19:28:55 absolutely horrible 19:29:05 oerjan's is horrible yes 19:29:06 but semantically meaningful 19:29:11 yes 19:29:14 but thats not the point oerjan 19:29:19 semantically we can understand a lot of stuff 19:29:29 psygnisfive: could you show me how to construct it better? 19:29:32 thats because we have a pragmatics system that can "make it work" 19:29:37 oklopol: its tricky to do in english 19:29:39 it'd be like.. 19:30:12 what is the thing such that john wonders i mary bought that thing 19:30:17 wonders if** 19:30:40 well yeah you used like a variable there 19:30:45 yep 19:30:50 that's better, i do admit that 19:30:55 theres no WH-raising construction in english that lets you get that reading tho 19:31:03 and thats just part of english syntax 19:31:03 i disagree on not having an intuition about english. 19:31:14 well you're wrong ;) 19:31:37 no psygnisfive 19:31:38 hes not 19:31:39 :| 19:31:41 my intuition has owned many natives. 19:31:46 you might have some intuition, yes ok. but i'd question it. 19:31:51 anyway 19:31:52 being native is not a magical way to know a language perfectly 19:31:57 all this linguistics is something up with which i will not put 19:32:10 interestingly, some languages DO let you say "what does john wonder mary bought" 19:32:12 :P 19:32:24 mitä john miettii maryn ostaneen 19:32:25 finnish 19:32:34 john miettii mitä mary osti 19:32:35 mitä is what 19:32:36 'What does John wonder Mary bought?' is fine english 19:32:47 -!- atrapado has joined. 19:32:53 oerjan: are you saying that linguists would not approve of "all this linguistics is something that i will not put up with"? 19:33:05 ehird: no its not, go ask some other people. 19:33:13 psygnisfive: perish the thought :D 19:33:17 psygnisfive: i think he was just making a complicated sentence for linguistic fun's sake 19:33:20 psygnisfive: yes, because one person saying its not fine english without evidence against two people saying it's fine... 19:33:25 you evidently win 19:33:33 oerjan: linguists wouldnt say that tho. 19:33:40 argh!!!!!!!! 19:33:42 so much evidence and arguments we're seeing here 19:33:45 ehird: unfortunately, ehird, there's actually been RESEARCH into this 19:33:57 psygnisfive: researching doesn't change the fact that its fine english 19:34:00 and the RESEARCH shows that most english speakers do not accept that sentence. 19:34:07 you can stamp 'THIS IS CRAP ENGLISH' on a sentence all you want, and it does not make it so 19:34:07 psygnisfive: they will however argue incessantly about how they don't say that ;D 19:34:12 meaning that its NOT fine in english. 19:34:24 oerjan: no, they wont 19:34:28 infact 19:34:38 most theories of syntax REQUIRE that such things are permitted 19:34:47 lol psygnisfive is proving oerjan's piont 19:34:48 :D 19:34:50 *point 19:35:03 oh, i see what you meant there 19:35:07 yes, we WILL argue that we dont say that :P 19:35:18 :D 19:35:28 because most people think we will. but they're confusing linguists with gradeschool english professors 19:35:43 same thing 19:35:44 :-) 19:35:55 linguists actually care about what SPEAKERS say, gradeschool english professors care what STRUNK AND WHITE say 19:36:24 THIS CRAP IS ENGLISH. THIS IS ENGLISH CRAP. ENGLISH IS THIS CRAP. 19:36:39 English: Is this crap? 19:36:39 oh thats another english thing 19:36:40 Yes. 19:36:57 "is" is the only main verb in american english that has sentential negation AFTER it. 19:37:02 consider: 19:37:09 I run <> I do not run 19:37:15 butts 19:37:18 Slereah_: butts 19:37:20 I eat pizza <> I do not eat pizza 19:37:24 etc etc 19:37:26 but 19:37:31 Slereah_: many butts? 19:37:37 I am a student <> I am not a student 19:37:44 interesting! 19:37:47 psygnisfive: I butts <> I not butts 19:37:59 auxiliary verbs do similar stuff. 19:38:03 psygnisfive: interestingness approved 19:38:08 :) 19:38:26 i think we should have an esolang with movement and funky scope. 19:38:31 well isn't that the way auxiliary verbs do it, and "is" is interesting because it does it *without* the subsentence 19:38:47 yeah, auxiliaries behave exactly like that 19:38:58 "i will not pizza" 19:39:03 * ehird pizzas 19:39:07 well thats not an auxiliary actually 19:39:11 its slightly different 19:39:11 but will wants an event, so... pizza would be converted to a verb 19:39:16 but yeah 19:39:20 more precisely, the FIRST auxiliary in the sentence appears before sentential negation 19:39:20 * ais523 remembers our discussion about gerunds 19:39:23 I'LL PIZZA YOU 19:39:26 IF YOU DON'T SHUT UP 19:39:29 unless theres a MODAL verb, like will, can, might, etc. 19:39:30 we now know that oklopol is programming 19:39:36 but what does "I am burning" mean? 19:39:40 in which case the first non-modal auxiliary appears AFTER the sentential negation 19:39:45 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 19:39:50 ais: i means at the moment you're in the process of burning 19:39:51 it* 19:40:06 do you really need that explained to you? come now. 19:40:11 plus 19:40:13 thats not a gerund 19:40:16 thats a progressive 19:40:22 or that you *are* the process of burning, although i'm not sure that can be literally true 19:40:34 no, I don't think I am 19:40:38 tho gerunds and progressives do share morphology in english. 19:40:41 but am I on fire, or am I performing the action of burning 19:40:44 psygnisfive: it's a gerund 19:40:48 the speaker decides it 19:40:51 oklopol: it's not. 19:40:55 gerund is a technical term. 19:40:58 it means something specific. 19:40:59 (actually neither, but the sentence I gave is ambiguous 3 ways) 19:41:12 most people learn it, but forget that it means what it means 19:41:20 as a gerund, wouldn't it mean "i am the act of burning" 19:41:21 and they confuse it with progressives. 19:41:30 yes, it could, i suppose 19:41:33 which, of course, is ambiguous still 19:41:34 * ehird gerunds 19:41:36 psygnisfive: then it was a gerund. 19:41:39 also psygnisfive 19:41:42 that was what the conversation was about 19:41:43 ##linguistics exists 19:41:44 :-p 19:41:53 *is what 19:41:58 i am thinking of burning this channel down 19:42:06 also ehird: notice i dont care 19:42:13 im talking about the esoteric properties of a language. 19:42:18 hence its appropriate for #esoteric. 19:42:22 OH NOW WHAT 19:42:30 anyway, yeah, oklopol 19:42:33 #esoteric is officially a channel about programming languages, not esoterica in general 19:42:36 OH NOW WHAT 19:42:39 and it is not the first natlang discussion here today, either 19:42:43 OTHERS HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOU. 19:42:53 oklopol: lets design a language with movement and weird scope stuff. :D 19:43:02 psygnisfive: ChanServ agrees with me. 19:43:04 -!- ehird has left (?). 19:43:04 -!- ehird has joined. 19:43:08 conteric! 19:43:11 'Welcome to the esoteric programming channel!' 19:43:30 this is where you are programmed to become esoteric 19:43:36 english is a language for programming other peoples minds to think what you want them to think 19:43:54 IS NOT 19:43:55 psygnisfive: psygnisfive sucks 19:44:00 HAHAHAA 19:44:01 TAKE THAT 19:44:06 psygnisfive: psygnisfive wants to commit suicide right now 19:44:10 and swallow. 19:44:26 * oerjan whacks ehird with a pizza platter ---\____ 19:44:29 but not you, since you're a horrible human being. 19:44:34 * ehird eats pizza platter 19:44:42 oklopol and slereah on the other hand.. 19:44:47 oklopol! 19:44:50 lets design this language 19:44:52 :T 19:44:55 -!- sebbu has quit (No route to host). 19:44:56 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 19:45:04 if "little death" is an orgasm, then i guess "small suicide" would be like masturbation 19:45:07 it can have that weird quantification stuff i was on about a few months ago too 19:45:12 oklopol: deep 19:45:16 hahahahahahahahaha 19:46:06 not a perfect parallel but still :D 19:47:10 well i guess i should've made a pun, but that was a bit too far-fetched for me to be able to think of a way, without explicitly explaining the reference. 19:47:32 well, its just a non-analogy when an actual analogy would've been better 19:47:46 death : suicide !:: orgasm : masturbation 19:47:49 but still 19:47:51 it was funny 19:47:54 so shut up 19:48:01 :P 19:48:09 yes, i guess it's not a perfect parallel 19:48:22 is !:: a technical symbol? 19:48:22 btw guys 19:48:25 but "self-induced orgasm" sounds a bit booky 19:48:25 i just want to say 19:48:26 i love you 19:48:34 ...booky? 19:48:39 because i can make shut up like !:: and you understand what i mean 19:48:41 what the fuck. 19:48:43 oerjan: no its not but still :D 19:48:56 you understood it, did you not? 19:49:16 oklopol: bookish perhaps? 19:49:51 psygnisfive: no if you don't use the proper obscure technical terms how can it possibly be understandable? 19:49:56 oerjan: yes, that's what i meant, it's just i really tried to write "ish". 19:50:06 :P 19:50:22 noone else would understand the adhoc invention or extention or symbols like that 19:50:25 except programs 19:50:31 and ESPECIALLY except esopeople 19:50:32 <3 19:50:46 <4 19:50:52 i invent symbols all the time when explaining stuff to ppl 19:51:12 the problem is, as you just said, that this is really the only place where i don't need to explain the symbols 19:51:20 oklopol: what about when you're talking aloud? 19:51:41 he doesn't talk aloud. 19:51:56 oh that's right, he's finnish 19:52:00 they are always silent 19:52:07 :) 19:52:17 see? 19:52:21 even now he tries not to talk 19:52:27 ! 19:52:36 19:52:49 money! 19:52:54 munny munny munny 19:52:56 i want munnies 19:52:57 hm 19:53:03 hi AnMaster, join the fun. 19:53:07 * oerjan wonders what that char showed up as 19:53:10 AnMster, hey 19:53:10 anything interesting being discussed? 19:53:14 oerjan: 19:53:16 ? in a diamond 19:53:17 like.. 19:53:19 oerjan, what char? 19:53:19 19:53:24 € <-- that? 19:53:27 Euro 19:53:35 anmaster's i can see, interestingly 19:53:36 that explains the "money!" 19:53:38 i wonder why 19:53:57 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has joined. 19:53:57 i see EUR, spelled out 19:53:58 psygnisfive, my client always sends as utf8, but it does auto detection on incoming data 19:53:58 oh btw oklopol 19:54:00 i love you. 19:54:04 so the copy-paste would have translated 19:54:07 to utf8 19:54:11 ais523: if you recall the muture thing, i still have problems translating programs to a search that can work with partial solutions, which doesn't rule any search techniques out, but does make things harder 19:54:15 well 19:54:17 however I recommend oerjan change to utf8 encoding too 19:54:26 i guess you lack context to understand what i'm talking about 19:54:29 instead of whatever legacy encoding he use 19:54:52 psygnisfive: that's kinda cool 19:54:59 oerjan, ? 19:55:09 AnMaster: i tried earlier and failed 19:55:16 oerjan, it is easy in for example xchat 19:55:23 ¤ 19:55:25 just /charset UTF-8 19:55:26 there 19:55:29 Ok anyone here willing to write me a program that uses all of the language's functions and outputs something to test whether the functions worked as intended? 19:55:38 oklopol, generic currency? 19:55:46 CO2Games, depends on what language it is? 19:55:46 generic currency indeed 19:55:52 apparently irssi does _some_ autodetection 19:55:57 it's a kind of assembly language 19:56:01 oerjan, well send in utf8 still 19:56:05 CO2Games, no thanks 19:56:12 http://co2games.com/wiki/index.php?title=N2CPU#Instruction_Set 19:56:15 CO2Games, do it yourself :) 19:56:22 mmm 19:56:24 assemblyyyyyyy 19:56:31 assembly is nice 19:56:34 and fuzzy 19:56:47 the syntax on this one is different 19:56:48 I want purely functional asm 19:56:58 that would be fun 19:57:02 AnMaster: that's what assembly is 19:57:07 CO2Games, no... 19:57:07 well, x86 assembly 19:57:11 what? :P 19:57:17 you got no idea what "pure functional" is? 19:57:22 err 19:57:29 idk? 19:57:37 well don't claim that x86 asm is that then 19:57:39 :P 19:57:43 what is it then 19:57:45 single-assignment registers! :D 19:57:52 :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 19:58:02 My assembly language instruction set doesn't have any ram 19:58:06 first class functions, single assignment, 19:58:08 for example 19:58:16 hmm 19:58:20 oklopol, also I admit that idea needs to be worked on 19:58:24 since it could cause issues 19:58:47 well, it might work if you allowed one to bind and unbind them on procedure bound 19:58:54 16 8-bit registers and two jump flags 19:58:58 oklopol, consider that you can compile java to bytecode, and that bytecode you could decompile to some asm... So... hm 19:59:04 and have dataflow variables, so you could return values from functions 19:59:09 if one can make OO asm 19:59:16 which both .NET and Java have 19:59:20 why not some functional one 19:59:30 not very low level asm I agree 19:59:38 And there's an additional 8-bit output register 19:59:45 i want single-assignment registers 19:59:47 oklopol, how would you define "asm" code? I mean formally 19:59:49 ok is this utf8: æ, ø, å? 19:59:49 what makes it asm 19:59:50 that's like the coolest idea ever 19:59:55 the emulator is fully CLI 19:59:57 oklopol, ? 19:59:59 AnMaster: the fact it seems asmy to me 20:00:00 that's all 20:00:16 oklopol, not that it is a very simple translation to the machine's own format? 20:00:21 assembly means each command is a single processor instruction 20:00:26 well, no nesting, and integers the only store 20:00:38 oklopol, because with that definition you could argue LISP *is* asm. Just fire up a LISP machine! 20:00:54 turning leaves are so very pretty 20:00:55 what definition? 20:00:59 psygnisfive: yes 20:01:04 lisp has nesting. 20:01:08 Isn't anything ASM for some machine? :o 20:01:11 turing leaves are pretty too 20:01:14 lisp has data types other than int 20:01:26 oklopol, an asm language is a language that is basically a 1-to-1 mapping to machine code 20:01:29 oklopol: each assembly command has a single instruction 20:01:35 then lisp would qualify on lisp-machines! 20:01:40 CO2Games: what does that mean? 20:01:48 how can a command have an instruction 20:01:52 it's just text names for binary commands 20:02:01 AnMaster: i haven't said that's a definition for being an asm 20:02:05 my definition 20:02:06 aliases, the assembler just takes that and de-aliases them 20:02:07 i mean 20:02:12 oklopol, oh well 20:02:24 CO2Games: my definition is more general than *that* 20:02:29 ouch 20:02:30 well 20:02:46 really quite different, i'm going by what the language feels like, not what it's used for 20:02:47 AnMaster: ok i think i found the right option 20:02:47 you need to learn about what an assembly language is 20:02:52 which i always do 20:02:56 i don't give a shit about usage 20:02:59 these leaves smell like lea 20:03:00 f 20:03:01 :o 20:03:01 oerjan, well I can't check since my client auto detect on lines 20:03:06 oerjan, ask psygnisfive 20:03:11 CO2Games: i've programmed ten times more asm than you :P 20:03:24 (for some values of true.) 20:03:25 But have you made an assembly instruction set 20:03:28 many 20:03:44 have you intended to make your own hardware to run them? 20:03:53 so asm is basically stuff like , and instr should be a TLA if possible? 20:04:03 has anyone ever tried to design a Lisp processor that doesn't use registers and so on but processes sort of exactly like lisp does? 20:04:07 oklopol, like mov, add, sub 20:04:10 CO2Games: no. except once in wireworld, but turned out that'd been done 20:04:11 In assembly each command is a single cpu instruction 20:04:18 fail 20:04:29 I intend to make hardware for my design 20:04:33 I've already made an emulator 20:04:35 So how does a Lisp machine works exactly? 20:04:38 CO2Games: fail? 20:05:00 slereah_: the way im familiar with, lisp machines work similar to non-lisp machines 20:05:03 You haven't intended to make hardware matching your assembly languages, that natively runs the output 20:05:06 oklopol, would you consider it asm if "mov %eax, %edx" was *written as*: "Move register eax to register edx"? or "(move eax edx)" 20:05:08 in that there are registers, and so forth 20:05:13 oklopol, I mean it wouldn't look like asm 20:05:17 and that stuff gets pushed onto a stack, etc. 20:05:26 oklopol, but in effect it would only be a trivial text transformation 20:05:27 CO2Games: indeed i haven't, i fail to see anything interesting in that 20:05:27 I think there was a rough description in the original Lisp article 20:05:32 EWW AT&T syntax, yucky 20:05:34 oklopol, since nesting wouldn't work 20:05:43 CO2Games, better than intel syntax at least 20:05:50 i just wonder if there are any machines that actually implement lisp directly, not through registers and so on 20:05:51 i mean 20:05:52 pfft 20:05:53 no way 20:06:02 register machines are like implementations of Assembly 20:06:05 intel syntax kicks at&t ass 20:06:06 psygnisfive : Does a man qualify as a machine? 20:06:07 CO2Games, I consider all x86 asm ugly 20:06:09 RISC please 20:06:15 the machine IS the instruction set and vice versa, to an extent 20:06:16 CISC is just horrible to code in 20:06:19 x86 is the ugliest thing mankind has ever devised. 20:06:24 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 20:06:26 x86 is easy 20:06:29 it should be destroyed and fed to pigs 20:06:32 oklopol, lets design a CPU 20:06:32 oklopol, indeed 20:06:34 :D 20:06:37 oklopol, x86_64 is even worse 20:06:39 a sexy CPY 20:06:39 yes, it's easy, but it's the ugliest thing mankind has ever devised. 20:06:42 I suggest PPC or SPARC 20:06:42 CPU* 20:06:44 it should be killed and fed to pigs 20:06:48 x86 supports nested loops 20:06:50 both seem sane compared to x86 20:06:52 for all topic in topics: psygnisfive.say('oklopol: lets design ' + topic) 20:06:52 really 20:06:55 CO2Games: does it? 20:06:57 yes 20:07:03 what do you mean 20:07:10 a: 20:07:13 ;something 20:07:15 b: 20:07:17 ;something 20:07:19 8| 20:07:21 loop b 20:07:21 god you're a noob 20:07:23 ;something 20:07:24 CO2Games: ... 20:07:25 loop a 20:07:26 oklopol, I agree 20:07:29 lol CO2Games 20:07:30 optbot, say something 20:07:30 Slereah_: take some, bitch 20:07:35 D: 20:07:39 I AM OUTRAGED 20:07:40 infact, lets design an instruction set that can be compiled down to some turing machine cpu relatively trivially 20:07:50 noob trigger activated, time to go read my book 20:08:02 If you guys are using assembler-specific loop structures, you're doing it wrong 20:08:06 anyway 20:08:10 and also the turing machine. :P 20:08:15 I want purely functional ASM! 20:08:17 really 20:08:23 I would like to see what it looked like 20:08:24 Lisp ASM? 20:08:32 i agree anmaster. it would be interesting. 20:08:34 single assignment 20:08:35 let us begin work! 20:08:44 AnMaster: what do you mean purely functional 20:08:46 CO2Games: what do you mean? not that i'm not already cone 20:08:47 *gone 20:08:52 psygnisfive: um 20:08:52 and higher order functions 20:08:54 psygnisfive: lisp machine 20:08:54 :| 20:08:58 oklopol is a cone 20:09:06 yes, yes he is 20:09:06 lisp machines are not functional ASM CPUs tho, ehird 20:09:07 ehird, yes... but by oklopol's definition of asm 20:09:09 havent you been listening? 20:09:15 yes 20:09:16 yes i have 20:09:18 well 20:09:19 ehird, I suggested it above 20:09:20 and 20:09:20 they sort of are 20:09:25 no 20:09:26 they are 20:09:27 oklopol disagreed 20:09:32 but they're really just register machines with built in lisp interpreters 20:09:36 no 20:09:37 no they 20:09:38 're not 20:09:41 yes 20:09:42 they 20:09:42 are 20:09:42 AnMaster: it's just what i meant by asm in that context. 20:09:45 fi you knew anything about them you wouldn't say that 20:09:50 actually 20:09:53 since ive seen their designs 20:09:57 AnMaster: seriously, what do you mean purely functional 20:09:58 i think i can say that fairly confidently 20:10:12 ehird, and they were not single assignment. I want single assignment registers! 20:10:13 atleast one of them, anyway. and from what i know most others are similar. 20:10:16 CO2Games: purely functional means blocks give the same output for the same input 20:10:18 single assignment memory 20:10:31 CO2Games, the normal definition that everyone else use 20:10:36 you could google 20:10:39 single assignment is for putzes. 20:10:49 psygnisfive, huh? 20:11:01 single assignment rocks 20:11:08 single assignment isnt really a huge benefit 20:11:13 i'm all about dataflow variables atm 20:11:14 and I want higher order opcodes! 20:11:14 :D 20:11:21 err 20:11:22 higher order opcodes huh 20:11:24 first-class opcodes 20:11:25 rather 20:11:26 :) 20:11:27 with them, single assignment simply become damn elegant 20:11:34 *becomes 20:11:39 opcodes that take opcodes as arguments and return opcodes as values? 20:11:43 :D 20:11:47 holy shit that's pretty 20:12:03 first-class opcodes, single assignment registers. higher order... err stuff 20:12:13 not sure you can have higher order *functions* in asm 20:12:16 now we're really just talking about building hardware that runs Lisp/Haskell 20:12:25 AnMaster: well you can't easily have closures 20:12:40 oklopol, hm call/cc need to be supported too 20:12:45 or something like ti 20:12:46 it* 20:12:47 but you can have higher-order functions in anything that allows pointers really 20:12:48 maybe 20:12:49 anyway 20:12:55 first class opcodes 20:12:55 i mean unrestricted pointers 20:12:58 that would rock 20:13:06 well that's not exactly true, but you know what i mean. 20:13:12 well that may not be true either. 20:13:18 i don't know anything 20:13:20 oh we need gc too 20:13:23 at asm level 20:13:28 AnMaster: do you know what call/cc is? 20:13:40 if so, damn, dude, stop becoming functional 20:13:44 it's scary. 20:13:51 oklopol, I know it, and I understand it *partly*, but it makes my head spin 20:14:09 well it needs some time to sink in before you see how to actually use it 20:14:17 oklopol, yes. like lisp macros 20:14:20 they are as bad 20:14:23 kind of 20:14:47 i don't think they are that hard to see the use of 20:14:55 I mean scheme without macros and call/cc is easy to understand really... Add either of those and it gets confusing 20:15:16 those are the tricky parts i guess 20:15:27 but hey, people, i'm really gonna go 20:15:34 well, unless CO2Games wants to answer 20:15:37 oklopol, anyway I suspect we need garbage collector for the asm or something 20:15:39 what? 20:15:47 answer what 20:15:52 22:07:51 CO2Games: If you guys are using assembler-specific loop structures, you're doing it wrong 20:15:55 what do you mean 20:16:07 masm has it's own loop structure 20:16:21 like, one that understands nested blocks 20:16:21 you are thinking way too low level 20:16:22 ? 20:16:25 if you use it, or its if structures, you're doing it wrong 20:16:29 most of us in here thinks high level 20:16:35 Apparently 20:16:37 * AnMaster pokes ehird 20:16:41 what 20:16:50 most of us in here thinks high level 20:16:53 ehird, I claimed someone else was thinking too low-level 20:16:53 excluding AnMaster ... 20:16:53 CO2Games: do you mean loopthisblock { } 20:16:55 just above 20:16:59 ehird, didn't you see it? 20:17:01 :-) 20:17:11 actually 20:17:14 CO2Games was thinking too high level. 20:17:17 I'm pretty sure it used something like .IF EAX or something 20:17:28 ehird, how do you mean? 20:17:34 CO2Games: what the fuck does a loop structure mean 20:17:35 ehird, oh it wrapped around? 20:17:41 a branch instruction? 20:17:48 no 20:17:48 or that you can wrap code in a block 20:17:49 oklopol, f() -> f(). 20:17:50 maybe 20:17:56 ;) 20:18:04 and actually 20:18:08 then functional asm exists 20:18:10 kind of 20:18:14 I mean masm and some others have support for preprocessing a while loop on a register 20:18:19 oklopol, want to hear the details? 20:18:25 CO2Games: and that's fail to use because...? 20:18:30 CO2Games: gcc-bf has an asm command for a while loop on a register 20:18:36 because that's not low-level enough 20:18:58 oklopol, erlang compiles the code to byte code, functional byte code... However you can make it dump that as erlang asm 20:18:59 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive/node4.html 20:19:00 for debugging 20:19:01 CO2Games: it's simpler to code with, and gives the same results 20:19:04 Would this be useful? 20:19:04 oklopol, it is scarry 20:19:09 and it looks like nothing else 20:19:25 CO2Games: you mean you shouldn't do it because you shouldn't take the easy way out? 20:19:26 Using low level languages like asm is used for more control over what the program is doing 20:19:46 using assembler-specific things just ruins the fun 20:20:05 CO2Games: well anyway, no, i've never used a loop structure like that, no fun progging in an esolang if you use a wimpmode 20:20:07 {function, module_info, 1, 36}. 20:20:07 {label,35}. 20:20:07 {func_info,{atom,intercal},{atom,module_info},1}. 20:20:07 {label,36}. 20:20:07 {move,{x,0},{x,1}}. 20:20:08 {move,{atom,intercal},{x,0}}. 20:20:10 {call_ext_only,2,{extfunc,erlang,get_module_info,2}}. 20:20:12 oklopol, like that ^ 20:20:22 that was an auto generated function 20:20:29 that contains module meta data 20:20:29 CO2Games: yeah, okay, if you mean it ruins the fun, then i agree 100% 20:20:44 it's like an esoteric language but they pay people to use it 20:20:49 don't spoil it 20:20:51 oklopol, what do you think? 20:20:59 it's like an esoteric language but they pay people to use it 20:21:01 what language? 20:21:05 oklopol, call_only is tail recursion 20:21:05 asm 20:21:07 x86 assembly 20:21:21 AnMaster: also called a "jump" :P 20:21:26 it's the big hit in the drivers and hardware control industry 20:21:28 oklopol, yep 20:21:44 your sata drivers are probably written in raw assembly 20:21:45 oklopol, actually it was a generic tail call 20:21:50 assuming you have any install 20:21:52 ed 20:22:01 CO2Games, hardly 20:22:08 they are coded in C mostly 20:22:11 wow 20:22:13 they fail bad 20:22:16 no 20:22:20 * oklopol goes -> 20:22:29 that's like writing a kernel in C, you should've used asm 20:22:31 CO2Games, they are coded in C mostly everywhere 20:22:36 and kernels are coded in C 20:22:39 then they fail 20:22:40 with tiny bits of asm 20:22:48 see, that's their problem 20:22:54 oh god.. you are a troll really? 20:22:58 nobody wants to work with low level 20:23:10 well, i agree with CO2Games, and i'm not a troll 20:23:19 oklopol, about what? 20:23:21 CO2Games: there are lower levels than asm 20:23:31 even asm is still interpreted by a physical object 20:23:35 yes 20:23:37 oklopol, http://rafb.net/p/k0Bx1911.html <-- this may interest you 20:23:38 my University project is about compilation into hardware 20:23:41 psygnisfive, you too ^ 20:23:42 I'm talking software 20:23:46 and ais523 ^ 20:23:49 where the only interpretation, if any, is done by the laws of physics 20:23:55 AnMaster: that even things that absolutely need to be correct should be coded in a language that makes enforcing correctness as hard as possible 20:24:02 but, i guess i'm a bit of a troll by nature 20:24:13 it makes the hardware/software line blurry if you're compiling directly into hardware from a C-like language... 20:24:15 eww yucky get it away 20:24:16 oklopol, haha 20:24:32 ais523: are you making a hdl? :O 20:24:46 oklopol: no 20:24:47 better 20:24:54 ..better? 8| 20:24:56 I'm compiling into an hdl from a C-like language 20:24:56 CO2Games, compiling into hardware is fun :) 20:24:57 I'm thinking of making my own computer system thingy 20:25:00 which is imperative but lazy 20:25:08 ais523: oh my god 20:25:09 and expensive if it's one of those hardcore chips 20:25:21 ais523: verilog is pretty much c... 20:25:27 oklopol: don't believe it 20:25:32 i've seen itt 20:25:33 *it 20:25:35 it looks like C but the paradigm is totally different 20:25:38 hmm 20:25:40 true. 20:25:41 in C the commands generally have some sort of order... 20:25:45 heh 20:25:49 anyone can make a programming language look like C 20:25:52 yeah okay, it's totally different 20:25:53 that doesn't mean it is C 20:26:02 See: Jugs 20:26:07 looks like c 20:26:10 it isn't c 20:26:23 ais523, a functional language should work well for that, since you could potentially easily figure out what you can evaluate in parallel 20:26:29 better than imperative 20:26:49 AnMaster: we're compiling via a functional language 20:26:50 ais523: well that sounds incredibly cool, i'd love to help, even, were i of any use. 20:26:51 except it isn't 20:27:02 ais523, so something with single assignment, no side effects should be best 20:27:02 it's sort of a limited functional language 20:27:07 where you aren't allowed to do recursion 20:27:13 and no, single assignment doesn't help 20:27:15 just read a book about processor design, and i kinda wanna play with that 20:27:27 ais523, is it tc without recursion? 20:27:32 my machine's emulator is 1781 lines long before preprocessing 20:27:40 AnMaster: no, no real piece of hardware can be TC 20:27:51 the language therefore has to deliberately be sub-TC, if you think about it 20:27:53 ais523: asmtc 20:27:58 ais523, true but you could run loops on them 20:28:11 asmtcness is a concept designed for this exact purpose 20:28:11 it allows tail-recursion in the intermediate lang 20:28:18 which is compiled from loops in the source lang 20:28:25 ais523: the compiling step could still be TC 20:28:31 10101 instructions 20:28:32 FUCK 20:28:32 ais523, bounded storage yes. Preventing loops: not needed 20:28:33 -> 20:28:39 as far as I can see 20:28:42 AnMaster: loops are allowed, so are nested loops 20:28:47 but non-tail recursion isn't 20:28:52 ais523, ah 20:28:55 you can convert all imperative-style loops into tail recursin 20:28:57 *recurison 20:29:01 *recursion 20:29:11 ais523, yes if nothing else you can do it as continuation passing 20:29:14 iirc 20:29:22 probably there are better ways 20:29:25 10101 instructions in binary that is 20:29:28 AnMaster: continuation passing in hardware? 20:29:31 are you serious? 20:29:35 ais523, no.... 20:29:36 remember you don't have pointers... 20:29:41 ais523, oh ok 20:29:46 ais523, so how then? 20:29:55 so how what, loops? 20:30:03 no it's while, not what 20:30:05 you just get a function to call itself at the end 20:30:09 to loop, if the loop hasn't ended 20:30:13 pretty trivial really 20:30:32 ais523, a language can be tc without recursion but with while-style loops. Just look at for example brainfuck 20:30:42 yes, I know 20:30:47 but there's a limited amount of memory 20:30:48 So anyways guess what 20:30:55 the TC problems aren't due to the control structures 20:31:07 My machine is not turing complete on its own 20:31:10 ais523, recursion without imperative-style loops is tc. 20:31:12 recursion does create an infinite amount of memory, if you have either local variables or arguments 20:31:20 ais523, so is just tail-recursion 20:31:20 unless you force the user to write down a tape of bits 20:31:21 but 20:31:27 What about that SMITH language? :o 20:31:32 how without continuations 20:31:33 ? 20:31:37 that is my question 20:31:38 That just rewrites itself at the end 20:31:43 AnMaster: how what? 20:31:50 I don't get what you're getting at...# 20:31:56 s/#// 20:31:59 ais523, how do you transform any loop into a tail recursive call 20:32:15 ais523, if you can't use continuations 20:32:31 a; while(c) b; d; becomes a; f(); d; sub f() {b; if(c) f();} 20:32:38 pretty simple really... 20:33:38 ais523, hm since body recursion got the same "tc-ness" as that style of loops... Is it that easy to transform any recursion into tail recursion? 20:34:09 no, it fails if you have to maintain state and retrieve it later 20:34:22 ais523, for example the traditional non-tail (body for short in this context) recursive fibonacci. 20:34:23 Ok I've come to a conclusion 20:34:24 or if you need to know the recursion height 20:34:32 The machine cannot store data. 20:34:38 ais523, you can transform it to normal loops though 20:34:39 well, enough data 20:34:43 here's some C code: 20:34:44 or bf wouldn't be tc 20:34:47 ais523, ^ 20:34:47 there's only 16 registers 20:34:58 AnMaster: yes, you have to maintain a stack by hand 20:35:02 It'd need a tape device 20:35:02 to do that transformation 20:35:04 in some cases 20:35:17 ais523, right. (Though there are ways around for fib iirc) 20:35:35 ais523, but stack needs pointer doesn't it? And you didn't have pointers you said 20:36:08 void f(void) {if(getchar()!='a') {if(getchar()=='!') return; abort();} f(); if(getchar()!='b') abort();} 20:36:16 AnMaster: yes, that's why my program isn't TC 20:36:24 although it has loops, there are some things you can't compile into it 20:36:35 due to the lack of having infinite storage 20:36:47 look at my one-liner C program above, and assume you've included the header files and call f from main 20:36:48 ais523, a fib for 32-bit integers :) 20:36:53 You can use a register to be a stack pointer 20:37:18 yes there are various other ways to make fib tail recursive 20:37:18 It's nit-picking time! ais523's tail-recursion example implements "a; do { b; } while(c); d;" and not "a; while(c) b; d;" as advertised. 20:37:19 I know that 20:37:29 fizzie: whoops, I need an extra if 20:37:40 it doesn't really change the nature of it, though 20:37:59 Sure, that's why the call it picking nits. (What's the etymology of that anyway?) 20:42:48 -!- LinuS has joined. 20:43:17 -!- Mony has quit (Connection timed out). 20:43:32 Oct 3 13:30:21 tux [3293016.218037] readonly.exe[6652]: segfault at 4005bc ip 4004c1 sp 7fffe6b1bf80 error 7 in readonly.exe[400000+1000] 20:43:32 Oct 3 20:00:06 tux [ 4886.698062] rarian-sk-get-c[9053]: segfault at 0 ip 35fae73af0 sp 7fff6d5db9b8 error 4 in libc-2.6.1.so[35fae00000+136000] 20:43:33 wtf 20:43:42 * AnMaster searchs disk 20:43:44 readonly.exe? 20:43:49 ais523, what I'm wondering too 20:43:52 that sounds very like a Windows program name... 20:43:53 rootkit? 20:43:58 ais523, yes and I don't have wine 20:44:14 it seems unlikely that your computer would get rooted... 20:44:18 ais523, indeed 20:45:53 AnMaster: http://web.archive.org/web/20030521231823/http://www.essenz.com/support/comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc/Oct/29/207663.html 20:46:03 fizzie: nits are the eggs of lice iirc 20:46:11 ais523, ah yes I upgraded ksh 20:46:17 ais523, the other one then 20:46:18 hm 20:46:19 seems it only happens on FreeBSD when compiling ksh 20:46:23 ais523, Gentoo 20:46:25 not freebsd 20:46:28 ok 20:46:31 maybe the same problem though 20:46:35 I'd guess it's a confused Makefile 20:46:41 which tries to do Windows stuff by mistake 20:46:50 CO2Games: a limited amount of registers can still be TC if they are unbounded, see Minsky Machine on the wiki 20:47:25 ais523, found anything on the other process? 20:47:32 haven't searched yet 20:47:38 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234489 20:47:38 hm 20:47:45 the registers are 8-bit 20:47:49 not infinite 20:47:49 app-text/rarian 20:47:52 seems I got it installed 20:47:55 and there are only 16 of them 20:47:55 some dep 20:48:01 not infinite 20:48:14 ais523, I think segfault log messages should record path info too 20:48:16 just IMO 20:48:17 A tape device or memory device would have to be attached 20:48:51 CO2Games: yeah then you need a tape device, a RAM is not technically enough since the pointer sizes would be bounded too 20:49:03 ais523, if it had said something like /var/tmp/portage/app-shells/ksh-1.2.3/work/ksh-1.2.3/readonly.exe then I wouldn't have got scared like that 20:49:14 or whatever the ksh version is 20:49:53 oerjan: you could use a RAM if you had bignum pointers 20:50:06 ais523: he had 8-bit registers 20:50:34 16 registers? 20:50:35 eww 20:50:39 that few 20:50:48 a real arch should have at least 64 GPR 20:50:57 of reasonable size 20:51:01 like 32-bit or 64-bit 20:51:04 um 20:51:05 depending on platform 20:51:07 64 registers? 20:51:09 fuck. that. shit. 20:51:13 bff-gc has 64 general-purpose 8 bit registers 20:51:15 ehird, yes iirc PPC got that 20:51:17 *bf-gcc 20:51:22 which seems to be about the right number 20:51:24 think RISC 20:51:26 gcc generally ends up using 50 or so 20:51:27 not CISC 20:51:31 and you get more registers 20:51:32 :) 20:51:34 AnMaster: 16 registers is perfect 20:51:39 ehird, for a CISC 20:51:42 not for a RISC 20:51:45 no 20:51:47 for a risc 20:52:03 ehird, you had this discussion with RodgerTheGreat (iirc?) before 20:52:05 I agree with him 20:52:08 or whoever it was 20:52:13 and refer you to that convo 20:52:15 no, i didn't 20:52:18 was a few weeks/months ago 20:52:27 also, rodgerthegreat mostly agreed with me on the topic of asm 20:52:41 ehird, I think it was him that wanted to have more registers 20:52:46 as he rightly critiqued your cpu architechture which had an instruction to switch 32/64 bits but not the actual vitals. 20:53:21 ehird, it wasn't complete, it was a draft 20:53:45 and I was thankful for that he pointed out the issue 20:53:51 yes, but i think it's kind of fitting that it was very portable to various large-scale applications, it just didn't have anything else they'd need... 20:54:03 like.. 20:54:06 ehird, however. You disliked register count 20:54:09 program execution 20:54:18 and there rodger the great agreed with me 20:54:42 ehird, if you meant cpu rings, context switching and such then it wasn't intended 20:55:35 AnMaster: it seems quite a few other people are getting those rarian-sk-get-c errors, Googling doesn't show why though 20:57:55 ais523, yes 20:57:58 and wtf is rarian 20:57:59 really 20:58:01 cosmic rays, clearly 20:58:30 ais523, hit number 2 at google for "rarian-sk-get-c" (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234489) seems relevant I guess 20:58:33 librarian-dev - Rarian is a documentation meta-data library ( 20:58:46 ais523, yes and that doesn't say anything really 20:58:55 no 20:59:04 but at least it gives some clue as to why it was on your system 20:59:05 ais523, I mean it could be doxygen metadata, but I doubt that 20:59:15 I can certainly imagine something like that running during the compile of something 20:59:20 that used it for documentation 20:59:35 # equery depends app-text/rarian 20:59:35 [ Searching for packages depending on app-text/rarian... ] 20:59:35 app-text/scrollkeeper-9999-r1 (app-text/rarian) 20:59:44 huh? 20:59:49 9999? 20:59:49 what depends on scrollkeeper? 20:59:54 quite a lot AFAIR 20:59:59 [I] app-text/scrollkeeper 21:00:01 Description: Dummy scrollkeeper for testing rarian 21:00:06 * AnMaster growls 21:00:46 * oerjan howls 21:00:56 ais523, ah about all gnome packages that I happen to have installed because some bloody app I want depends on them instead of using something lightweight and portable such a wxwidgets 21:01:02 AnMaster: it seems that almost all of gnome depends on rarian 21:01:13 ais523, yes 5 packages 21:01:20 well this is a Gnome system 21:01:23 so it's a lot more packages for me 21:01:28 ais523, however I haven't updated rarian recently afaik 21:01:28 it's both Gnome and KDE, actually 21:01:34 but I normally boot into Gnome 21:02:18 -!- puzzlet_ has joined. 21:02:25 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection). 21:14:06 -!- kar8nga has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 21:18:01 -!- atrapado_ has joined. 21:18:33 ais523, well here startx to KDE loading dialog done takes about 10 seconds 21:18:37 so no big issue 21:18:38 to use KDE 21:18:48 ais523, also I hardly ever reboot 21:18:57 today I did for reasons out of my control 21:19:05 but I had over a month of uptime before that 21:19:08 -!- atrapado has quit (Nick collision from services.). 21:19:12 -!- atrapado_ has changed nick to atrapado. 21:20:42 AnMaster: ais523 is not online 21:23:13 * [ais523] is away (Gone away for now.) 21:23:15 correct 21:23:21 <-psyBNC> Fri Oct 3 20:13:37 :User ais523 quitted (from 147.188.254.96) 21:23:22 ehird, I assume he have away log :) 21:23:23 Even more correct. 21:23:32 has* 21:23:34 AnMaster: Since his client isn't connected to the server, no. 21:23:44 ehird, err? the bnc should have an away log 21:23:47 or disconnect-log 21:23:48 Yes. 21:23:49 or whatever 21:23:49 Yes it does. 21:23:50 But he doesn't. 21:23:59 ehird, you mean he doesn't use it? 21:24:07 It's the server's, not his personally. 21:24:17 ehird, oh same bnc for both of you? 21:24:23 Yes. 21:24:25 I find that really confusing 21:24:30 Why? 21:24:44 ehird, also security issues. And shared away log 21:24:45 and such 21:24:47 Running two instances of it would just be wasteful. 21:24:48 should be per-user 21:24:50 not per-server 21:24:54 AnMaster: The latter: it is. 21:24:57 But it is on the server. 21:25:01 Not his machine. 21:25:12 Anyway, as for security issues, 21:25:14 ehird, of course I expect him to read it when he get back 21:25:16 we both have root on the server. 21:25:17 like an away log 21:25:25 AnMaster: I can nitpick if I want, can't I? 21:25:36 ehird, well I can't stop you :P 21:25:41 Anyway, security issues: since we're both sudoers, we could impersonate eacho ther even with seperate instances 21:26:14 Holy fuck. 21:26:18 pikhq: What. 21:26:29 When I was doing an emerge --sync, I think I saw some KDE 4.1 packages go by. 21:26:38 Dun dun DUNN 21:27:00 I thought KDE 4 wasn't in official Portage since KDE 4 ebuilds used EAPI 2, which got approved... 2 days ago. 21:27:22 Jeez, Gentoo. 21:27:26 You're either 5 years out of date... 21:27:31 or 2 seconds bleeding edge. 21:27:50 I'm using an overlay, so I'm 2 seconds bleeding edge. Whee. 21:28:18 * ehird looks at pikhq's outline. 21:28:21 Yes, that is quite some blood. 21:28:28 I think you wanna get that checked out 21:29:01 that's not blood, it's just ketchup 21:29:29 * ehird bites pikhq's arm off. 21:29:29 Now it 21:29:32 's blood. 21:29:45 it's just a flesh wound. 21:33:41 Oooh. baselayout-2 is about to hit Gentoo stable, too. 21:41:20 cc 21:45:07 -!- kar8nga has joined. 21:54:25 -!- moozilla has joined. 22:18:59 -!- ihope has joined. 22:19:06 Are Unlambda programs worth turning into music? 22:19:31 If not, I'll have to use Thue stuff instead. 22:19:34 Yes. Yes. 22:19:36 To both. 22:19:37 bop boppeti bop boop beep 22:19:39 ihope: c-b-l 22:37:47 -!- LinuS has quit (Connection timed out). 22:58:13 -!- atrapado has quit ("Abandonando"). 23:01:52 I thought KDE 4 wasn't in official Portage since KDE 4 ebuilds used EAPI 2, which got approved... 2 days ago. 23:01:53 Jeez, Gentoo. 23:01:53 You're either 5 years out of date... 23:01:53 or 2 seconds bleeding edge. 23:01:54 wrong 23:02:02 the ones in the tree were converted 23:02:05 to not use EAPI 2 23:02:13 at least they were before 23:02:13 Ha. How typical. 23:02:19 Gentoo patches stuff and fails to give a shit about the maintainers. 23:02:33 Things break, people complain upstream, developers tell them to go away because Gentoo just fucks with their stuff and doesn't tell them. 23:02:35 Everyone loses. 23:02:49 ehird, err how did it break? 23:03:02 AnMaster: I did not say this specific case. 23:03:23 ehird, your comment about "typical" indicated that you considered the current case representative for what you said 23:03:27 that is the common usage of it 23:03:45 AnMaster: Can you guarantee that it won't break? 23:03:46 No. 23:03:58 That interpretation could be correct. 23:04:00 But that's not the point. 23:04:23 EAPI-2 is an extension to the package format, it was used in the development repo for KDE for a while. Now EAPI-2 have become standard. 23:05:18 AnMaster: Can you guarantee that it won't break? <-- no, doing that for anything non-trivial would solve the halting problem I think 23:05:35 ehird, however iirc the EAPI-2 change is minor 23:05:37 Nothing is BROKEN. 23:05:40 so "probably won't" 23:05:45 The computer always does what you tell it to. 23:05:52 ehird, indeed 23:05:55 Detecting such wouldnt' be halting problem, 23:05:58 it'd just be impossible. 23:06:12 ehird, "broken algorithm" however 23:06:41 ehird, "does this algorithm do what it says on the box"? 23:06:48 Impossible to detect :-P 23:06:49 that would solve halting problem 23:07:20 "this algorithm returns true if the Riemann hypothesis is true 23:07:29 ehird, just consider something like that ;P 23:08:04 i smell a logical fallacy 23:08:09 or "this algorithm returns true if the function passed to it will halt" 23:08:14 oerjan: Ditto. 23:08:15 may not be halting problem 23:08:23 however impossible indeed 23:08:38 just because it's impossible for _some_ programs doesn't mean it's impossible for _every_ program 23:08:47 oerjan, indeed 23:08:52 you could make a trivial case 23:09:04 oerjan, I was talking about the general case however 23:09:07 -!- kar8nga has left (?). 23:09:34 if the moon is on the sky then one plus one equals two 23:11:04 This just in: Famous Oklopolian mathematician proves that basic arithmetic derives from celestial bodies. 23:11:12 * ihope yawns disavowingly 23:11:40 oklopolian 23:11:41 :D 23:11:53 what about this.... hm 23:12:06 i think that should be oklopolitan 23:12:12 or perhaps oklopolar 23:12:27 oklopolitan would probably be the most logical one 23:12:32 no doesn't work 23:12:39 oklopolous 23:12:39 ok I admit my wording was bad 23:12:45 anyway it's moot as Oklopolis sunk in the ocean thousands of years ago 23:13:01 ehird, "does this algorithm do what it says on the box"? Impossible to detect :-P <-- why? If it isn't the halting problem, then what is it? 23:13:34 AnMaster: Uh, that's called "reading your mind". 23:14:03 ehird, hm? Proving if a certain algorithm does what it says is mind reading? 23:14:08 Yes. 23:14:09 huh 23:14:12 How do you codify what it says? 23:14:13 :-P 23:14:22 ehird, using some format syntax 23:14:28 ehird: says on the box == satisfies a declarative specification, i assume 23:14:29 AnMaster: ... which can have bugs in it. 23:14:33 oklopol, yes 23:14:41 So now you have to verify the specification via another specification. 23:14:43 _every_ algorithm does exactly what it says. remarkable, that. 23:14:44 Ooh, I love infinite regress. 23:14:47 oerjan++ 23:14:53 oklopol, except my wording was less format ;P 23:14:57 Oklopolitan, yes. 23:16:14 oerjan, hm I suspect you could construct something like: "this algorithm: Don't run this algorithm", though that may just be a plain boring paradox 23:16:18 ehird: well yes, that's true, you cannot achieve what the original intention was. 23:16:23 i mean 23:16:41 cannot check whether the algorithm does what the creator wanted it to 23:17:19 "to run this algorithm: do not run this algorithm" isn't exactly a set of well-defined computational steps 23:17:28 well 23:17:44 oklopol, well that is true 23:17:48 you can either think it means do not run this algorithm as in "do not recurse" == nop 23:17:51 but 23:18:02 "Don't do ..." is not much of an algorithm. 23:18:08 oklopol, "s/do not/do never have and never will/" 23:18:09 ;P 23:18:21 and true 23:18:21 you can also think in a logical sense, that it means "do not do such a sequence of operations that the result is the same as after running this algorithm" 23:18:23 Well, I guess it's a nondeterministic algorithm. 23:18:24 which i'm sure you meant 23:18:34 This statement is not a statement. 23:18:42 The possible results of that algorithm are precisely those results that the algorithm cannot produce. 23:18:45 the latter is a declarative specification, a constraint, it's not an "algorithm" in the sense normally used 23:19:07 read what i said, it will answer all. 23:19:24 oklopol, ah hm. Yes that was what I meant 23:20:20 night all 23:20:28 night. 23:20:36 so, anyone wanna share some food with me? 23:21:35 -!- Sgeo has joined. 23:22:05 hm, food 23:22:16 oklopol: sure. 23:22:36 -!- jix has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 23:23:13 ehird: send via mail asp 23:23:17 I'll put a bit of sugar in an envelope and mail it to you. 23:23:23 oklopol: i didn't agree to supply the food! 23:23:24 that would be nice 23:23:57 ehird: touche 23:24:03 You'll have to send me a SASE, though. 23:24:24 I'll give you the address. 23:25:06 what's a SASE 23:25:44 Self-addressed stamped envelope. 23:26:04 ah 23:26:22 are you in high-school? 23:26:39 Yep. 23:26:49 Maybe you'll have to use one of those fancy international reply coupon things. 23:27:13 ihope: could you send me a SASSASE 23:27:21 like, so i can send you the sase 23:28:22 I won't send you anything unless you first send me a SASE to send it in. 23:28:30 I'm cheap. 23:31:44 Either that, or I can't afford the 42 cents for a stamp. 23:32:01 42 cents? 23:32:06 That's like... 0 euros 23:35:15 about 30 euro cents 23:35:59 or 2.5 NOK 23:36:15 NOK NOK 23:36:17 which i'm sure is far less than it would cost from norway... 23:40:11 7 NOK for standard priority letter within norway 23:42:26 -!- CO2Games has quit ("And I invented doors, no joke!"). 23:42:49 11 NOK to outside europe. about 1.84 USD. 23:46:33 * oerjan notes that freaking out ihope with norwegian price levels doesn't seem to be working 23:46:48 either that, or he's in shock :D 23:49:02 -!- optbot has set topic: the entire backlog of #esoteric: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | and i dont know what "other dos emulators" is. 23:55:42 psygnisfive, there? 23:56:00 psygnisfive, was the fedora/bowler hat grammar your idea? Or someone else? 23:56:16 whoever it was: did the discussion get anywhere?