16:11:53 -!- clog has joined.
16:11:53 -!- clog has joined.
16:13:27 -!- Eidolos has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
16:25:43 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
16:53:14 <SimonRC> oh deary me:   http://www.poetictech.com/
17:33:15 -!- ihope has joined.
17:33:37 <pikhq> Yeah, that's it.
17:39:08 -!- calamari has joined.
17:44:18 <ihope> This event brings the number of people named after food in this channel up to, um... one!
17:45:17 <pikhq> d/me sees none. . .
17:45:46 <pikhq> Ah.
17:45:53 -!- IronGland has joined.
17:46:04 -!- IronGland has quit ("Chatzilla 0.9.75 [Firefox 1.5.0.7/2006090918]").
17:47:07 <calamari> hi
17:47:29 <calamari> btw.. I'm named after Star Wars.. sorry!
17:48:34 <pikhq> calamari==squid.
17:49:45 <calamari> calamari is squid used as food
17:50:24 <SimonRC> Best.  Name.  Evar.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub_Iwerks
17:50:30 <calamari> but it is also the calamari cruiser (ship), and mon calamari (race) in star wars.. as seen in return of the jedi
17:50:56 <SimonRC> < SimonRC> oh deary me:   http://www.poetictech.com/
18:01:12 -!- oerjan has joined.
18:05:15 <SimonRC> oerjan: hi
18:06:59 <oerjan> hi
19:03:49 -!- oerjan_ has joined.
19:05:11 -!- oerjan has quit ("Leaving").
19:05:27 -!- oerjan_ has changed nick to oerjan.
19:10:52 -!- Sgeo has joined.
19:18:56 <SimonRC> hi, Sgeo
19:19:01 <Sgeo> Hi
19:20:35 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Nick collision from services.).
19:20:50 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
19:30:30 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht").
19:32:32 <ihope> You don't have permission to access /w/index.php on this server.
19:32:43 <ihope> Noes, the wiki is broken...
19:32:47 <ihope> I mean borken.
19:34:02 <pikhq> GGGRAH!!!
19:36:05 <oerjan> works for me, but i had problems earlier. it is just a bit unstable
20:13:21 -!- GregorR has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
20:13:37 -!- GregorR has joined.
20:13:46 <SimonRC> yo
20:15:31 <oerjan> nes
20:15:45 <ihope> NES?
20:16:20 <oerjan> the opposite of yo
20:16:23 <SimonRC> ihope: Nintendo Entertainmen Syste,
20:17:35 * ihope nods
20:17:52 * oerjan yesds
20:19:28 <oerjan> wow, even wikipedia is borken today
20:20:37 <pikhq> http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/ Thoughts?
20:21:49 <oerjan> thoughts? on nonlogic?
20:22:07 * oerjan is feeling extremely punny today
20:22:26 <pikhq> :p
20:30:05 <oerjan> hm, am i right if i guess that a BFM program can only access the named variables, and no other locations?
20:31:21 <oerjan> so no turing completeness if cell size is bounded, even if the tape is unbounded
20:33:11 <oerjan> it seems a bit strange to call it a macro package for BF if BF is not actually a sub-language. it is more like a language compiled into (a subset of) BF.
20:34:01 <pikhq> oerjan: Well, the version I have in ~ has a special variable called "current" which is the current location on the array. . . And left number, right number to move in the array, and at variable to tell the parser where we're at in the code once down using "current".
20:34:43 <pikhq> oerjan: Also, you could just abuse comments to do the same thing (comments are output verbatim into the resulting BF code).
20:35:38 <pikhq> oerjan: I should *probably* get that tarball up to date and update that page.
20:36:26 <oerjan> but will arbitrary inline code not wreak havoc with variable positioning?
20:36:56 <pikhq> oerjan: Thus why I added the "right", "left", and "at" commands.
20:37:25 <pikhq> Allows us to go back to standard variable positioning.
20:37:31 -!- jix has joined.
20:40:09 <oerjan> i see. i'll have to wait for your uploading
20:40:49 <pikhq> Let me clean up some code. . .
20:42:17 <pikhq> oerjan: http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/bfm.tar.bz2
20:42:51 * pikhq should fix his BFM -> C compiler sometime. . .
20:45:23 <SimonRC> woohoo!  *bounce* *bounce* *bounce*   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4526819805867391097
20:45:30 <SimonRC> ;-D
20:46:17 -!- ihope_ has joined.
20:56:08 <oerjan> i see .. now i'll just have to wait for an updated spec, so i can understand what the new commands actually do...
20:56:56 <oerjan> or, left, right and at just tell the macro processor the effect of inlined code, right?
20:57:54 <pikhq> left 5 = "<<<<<"
20:58:01 <pikhq> right 5 = ">>>>>"
20:58:24 <pikhq> at foo tells the macro processor that the pointer is at foo (once you're done using left and right).
20:59:05 <pikhq> And "current" just corresponds to the current location at the pointer (no moving around to another variable).
20:59:33 <pikhq> while current {subtract current 1}
20:59:36 <pikhq> [-]
20:59:46 <pikhq> @ foo 0
20:59:50 <pikhq> @ bar 5
20:59:59 <pikhq> while bar {subtract bar 1}
21:00:04 <pikhq> >>>>>[-]
21:00:08 <pikhq> See the difference?
21:00:56 <oerjan> aha.
21:01:32 <pikhq> BTW, to prove that I've made it Turing complete, there's a script in that tarball which compiles from BF to BFM.
21:02:57 <oerjan> hm, there is a problem here, what about left and right inside while?
21:03:15 <pikhq> while current { left 5 }
21:03:16 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out).
21:03:21 <pikhq> [<<<<<]
21:03:23 <pikhq> Your point?
21:03:30 <pikhq> Or do you mean:
21:03:32 <pikhq> @ foo 0
21:03:38 <pikhq> while foo { left 5 }
21:03:40 <pikhq> ?
21:04:00 <oerjan> the latter would show the problem, yes
21:05:26 <pikhq> I think it would compile the same as while current { left 5 }.
21:05:57 <pikhq> Keep in mind, though, that using a variable after left or right without at is undefined behavior.
21:06:13 <oerjan> that's what i wondered
21:11:50 <oerjan> except outside while, then left and right seem to keep track of location
21:13:00 <pikhq> Uh. . . Don't think so. . .
21:13:03 <pikhq> @ foo 0
21:13:06 <pikhq> @ bar 5
21:13:11 <pikhq> right 5
21:13:23 <pikhq> add current 5
21:13:33 <pikhq> add bar 5
21:14:16 <pikhq> While it's obvious the pointer is at 5, (and therefore >>>>>++++++++++), the actual result is >>>>>+++++>>>>>+++++.
21:15:36 <pikhq> The parser doesn't know that the pointer is at 5; all it knows is that it needs to output >>>>>+++++, and (since the pointer, according to its simpleton parsing, is at 0) >>>>>+++++.
21:17:08 <oerjan> have you tested it?
21:17:11 <pikhq> Thus, the point of the at command: telling the parser where the pointer is.
21:17:14 <pikhq> Yeah.
21:18:00 <oerjan> how can it be, when proc right clearly contains incr ::location?
21:18:53 <pikhq> . . . Gah.
21:19:01 <pikhq> I need to test it again.
21:19:11 <pikhq> May have changed some stuff to make it work.
21:21:37 <pikhq> . . . You're right.
21:21:56 <pikhq> Somehow, the code works more cleverly than I thought it did.
21:22:05 <pikhq> :)
21:22:15 <oerjan> it will only work outside while, however
21:22:48 <pikhq> Yeah.
21:23:19 <oerjan> if you wanted to be more clever you could check whether ::location was the same at the beginning and end of a while, and if not set ::location to some "undefined" value
21:23:50 <pikhq> Yeah. . .
21:24:06 <pikhq> I take it you're a Tcler?
21:24:25 <oerjan> no, surprisingly not i am just guessing how it works
21:24:38 <pikhq> Ah.
21:24:51 <pikhq> Because you seem to be getting a very good feel for how it works. . .
21:25:03 <pikhq> Fortunately, large amounts of it are fairly simple.
21:25:57 <oerjan> yes.but why do some procs have _ at the begining of their name?
21:26:31 <pikhq> If I didn't have _, then it would conflict with a Tcl command.
21:27:31 <pikhq> Since those commands are just bound into the blanked slave interpreter, it doesn't matter, anyways.
21:28:13 <SimonRC> Spot the difference:   http://www.timecube.com/   http://www.wrightforcongress.net/
21:28:51 <pikhq> Different bullshit.
21:29:56 <pikhq> Oooh! And he knows the marquee tag, too!
21:31:46 <SimonRC> lolol
21:32:08 <oerjan> what does the array command do?
21:32:37 <pikhq> oerjan: As of now, nothing.
21:33:01 <pikhq> Ideally, it will be used for defining an array to be manipulated by getarray and setarray (which aren't in stdlib/ yet).
21:33:46 <pikhq> And it will define the array in such a way that one can either call cells in the array as a variable or via getarray and setarry.
21:34:05 <pikhq> Calls via a variable being hardcoded, calls via getarray/setarray using a pointer.
22:00:39 <pikhq> oerjan: Playing around with it, or just trying to understand it?
22:03:59 <SimonRC> Oh for Gods' sakes!
22:04:02 <SimonRC> Slashdot just put up a front-page article which is a dupe of a dupe of a dupe.
22:04:31 <ihope_> A what?
22:05:41 <oerjan> just trying to understand it
22:05:45 <pikhq> I think it's up to quadup.
22:06:07 <SimonRC> a dupe is an article that is redundant because it has already been posted about.
22:12:22 -!- Eidolos has joined.
22:18:29 <SimonRC> hi
22:21:16 <oerjan> hm... dupe, tripe, quadrupe...
22:22:59 <Robdgreat> ugh tripe
22:23:42 <oerjan> you look abbreviated today...
22:24:57 <oerjan> ah, you're a different person
22:26:06 <Robdgreat> yeah
22:26:11 <Robdgreat> I haven't been in here in a while
22:35:26 <oerjan> well, good night
22:35:32 -!- oerjan has quit ("Leaving").
22:38:35 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht").
23:17:02 * SimonRC goes to bed
23:46:13 -!- jix has joined.