00:06:11 -!- DoA-TheGreat has joined. 00:06:11 -!- DoA-TheGreat has left. 00:08:26 and his faithful dog DoB-Do 00:08:48 you think you're so cool 00:08:52 but let me tell you something 00:12:02 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:13:22 btw i proved that every sequence in roman numeral look and say grows exponentially 00:13:32 you sneaky bastard! 00:13:41 :D 00:14:00 i'm not yet sure whether it always grows at a constant limit speed though 00:14:21 you can tell me later, i'm trying to get to work at a sensible time today 00:14:28 namely now 00:14:34 basically, the substring VIIIVIIIIVIIIVI always arises, and is self-replicating 00:15:17 cool 00:16:53 wait 00:16:59 where are the breaks in that sequence 00:17:13 breaks? 00:19:18 it could be 52434241 or 8986 or something else in between, depending on which standard you choose 00:19:32 oh 00:19:49 in that case there are no breaks 00:21:12 or actually there's a break before every letter 00:22:15 oerjan: can you tell me the details? 00:23:07 -!- Tritonio has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 00:26:34 quintopia: I II III IV V VI (VII VIII ...) are the numerals i use (the larger ones disappear after two-three iterations) 00:26:58 I II III IIII IVI IIIVII IIIIIVIII VIIVIIII IVIIIIVIVI IIIVIVIIVIIIVII IIIIIVIIIVIIIIVIIIIIVIII VIIVIIIIIVIVIIVVIIVIIII IVIIIIVVIIVIIIVIIIIVIVIIIIVIVI IIIVIVIIVIVIIIIVIIIIIVIVIIVIIIVIVIIVIIIVII IIIII(VIIIVIIIIVIIIVI)VIIVVIIVIIIVIIIIVIIIIIVIIIVIIIIVIIIIIVIII 00:27:16 yeah that looks right to start with 00:27:26 -!- azaq23 has joined. 00:27:36 and for V, the same thing happens + extre 00:27:39 *extra 00:27:39 oerjan: could you please put the breaks in as hyphens so i can tell the difference between 3 and 12? 00:27:43 maybe you pasted my quote from yesterday 00:27:55 oerjan: no i did that just now 00:28:03 quintopia: um they are melted together after each step 00:28:22 wasn't all too careful but anyhow easy to believe, now i just have to make sure you didn't lie about self-replicating 00:28:36 say IIIVII -> III-I I-V II-I -> IIIIIVIII 00:29:24 oklofok: note i needed to consider a few different environments, also i checked with a haskell program 00:29:26 I I-I I-II I-III IV-I I-I-I-V-I-I III-I-I-V-II-I etc. 00:29:51 ah environments 00:29:56 quintopia: um no other way around for some of those 00:29:58 it's not actually context-free is it... 00:30:42 oklofok: um what does that mean here... 00:31:17 oerjan: that a I doesn't actually evolve like that if there's something around it 00:31:33 but maybe it essentially does, i haven't thought about this 00:31:57 VIIIVIIIIVIIIVI IVIIIIIVIVIIVIIIIIVII IIIVVIIVIIIVIIIIVVIIVIII IIIIIIVIIIIVIIIIIVIVIIIVIIIIVIIII VIIIVIVIIVVIIVIIIVIIIIIVIVIIVIVI IVIIIIIVIIIVIIIIIVIIIIVIIIIIVVII(VIIIVIIIIVIIIVI)I aaaaaand we're there 00:32:27 oklofok: indeed. in fact that string i quoted is really |IIIVIIIIVIIIV| where the | signifies that if there is a letter on the other side it cannot be the same one 00:32:37 -!- copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.). 00:32:45 ah okay 00:33:28 oklofok: the clue here is that if you remove all initial V's after each step, it looks like you are _very_ likely to hit something beginning with that string eventually 00:34:41 idgi 00:35:04 and you can check that this is true for each of I, II, III, IV, IIV, ... IIIIIIV 00:36:33 not getting this at all man 00:36:35 not at all 00:36:43 oklofok: well to start with the beginning. the problem with this variation compared to ordinary look and say is that there are no atom boundaries (ignoring digits X, L etc. which don't matter after a few steps) 00:37:04 02:14:50 you can tell me later, i'm trying to get to work at a sensible time today 00:37:10 every sequence fluctuates between starting with I and starting with V 00:37:14 that is 03:14:50 for him 00:37:15 -_- 00:37:32 oerjan: yes 00:38:36 Vorpal: what about it 00:38:43 well actually i haven't done the case analysis but anyhow 00:38:48 Vorpal: morning work best of works 00:38:59 hah 00:39:13 i have all the math to myself 00:39:15 well i did, V -> I immediately and I -> V in at most 6 steps iirc 00:39:27 VVVVV => VV 00:39:55 btw you can have at most 2 V's and 6 I's in sequence after the 3rd or 4th generation or so 00:40:06 ah yes 00:40:23 okay then i'm good 00:41:01 it follows that every block of V's turns into either IV or IIV. thus every block of V's _always_ interacts with the previous block 00:42:24 because if there's a five, then more I's before the V, and if there's an I, then more I's on the next generation 00:42:27 i therefore mostly merge them together, and treat my basic units as IV, IVV, IIV, IIVV, IIIV, IIIVV, IIIIV, IIIIVV, IIIIIV, IIIIIVV, IIIIIIV and IIIIIIVV 00:42:40 okay 00:42:57 with beginning and end of the whole string sometimes exempted 00:43:21 -!- Vorpal has quit (Read error: Operation timed out). 00:43:37 when we do this, we see that blocks can send information to the previous block, in the form of an extra V occasionally 00:43:48 oerjan: please tell me it's tc 00:43:52 i'll explode with happy 00:44:02 also only the blocks IIIIV and IIIIVV split into two blocks 00:44:13 how can they send an extra V? 00:44:17 elliott_: i don't know yet, i've just shown it must grow exponentially 00:44:23 just tell me anyway 00:44:34 well consider our fundamental example 00:44:58 just tell me anyway 00:45:18 tell me it's tc 00:45:27 |IIIV|IIIIV|IIIV| -> |IIIIIV|IV|IIV|IIIIIV| -> (V)|IIV|IIIV|IIIIVV|IIV| 00:45:36 -!- elliott_ has changed nick to elliott. 00:45:38 -!- elliott has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:45:47 -!- elliott has joined. 00:45:50 elliott_: given four strings u, v, w and z it is RE-complete to tell whether z appears in the orbit of inf^u v w^inf 00:46:03 you see that the blocks with 5 or more I's at each step turn into something beginning with V, which is then merged with the previous block 00:46:09 oklofok: no i just want oerjan to tell me that it's tc 00:46:11 kthx 00:46:20 oerjan: can you copy my line for elliott 00:46:37 wat 00:47:15 oerjan: he doesn't like me telling him things 00:47:36 heh 00:47:50 oh yeah five ones does indeed send a V 00:48:04 so I and V are the only characters right 00:48:16 well, maybe if it's tc you need to insert others, but that's kinda bleh 00:48:19 (into the initial string) 00:48:39 elliott: the others if you include them shrink quickly to single isolated digits 00:48:47 so they're irrelevant good 00:48:56 so you can make a nice pretty drawing program ;D 00:48:58 that can be treated as simply equivalent to V followed by an atom boundary 00:49:12 (also that's the sense in which 110 has been proven tc, in case someone missed the reference for some reason) 00:49:29 (these being the _only_ atom boundaries) 00:49:36 heh 00:50:54 oklofok: now notice that information can only flow leftward in this view 00:51:02 noted 00:51:52 which means that we don't need to worry about what's to the left in order to find out how the blocks themselves evolve. thus i experimented with throwing away the initial V's at each step 00:52:08 ppl can have poop children to their left and also send a new V to their leftmost block 00:52:12 *neighbor 00:52:44 alrighty 00:52:57 makes sense 00:53:03 now i wanna know how that 110 proof goes 00:53:54 so oerjan you know the polynomial hierarchy right 00:54:24 well slightly, it's P^NP, P^P^NP etc. isn't it, and maybe something above that too 00:54:26 a language is sparse if there are only at most p(n) elements of length at most n in it 00:54:45 actually it's P^NP^NP^NP^NP... 00:54:59 P^P^NP = P^NP 00:55:00 oh right 00:55:19 -!- copumpkin has joined. 00:56:12 so you define Sigma_0 = Pi_0 = P, and then Sigma_(i+1) = NP^Sigma_i, Pi_(i+1) = co-Sigma_i 00:56:25 the point of Pi's being clear once i explain the alternative view to this 00:56:26 i don't know the details of that 110 proof i just know it's based on finding gliders that interact the way you want, and making a tag system out of them that requires infinite chain of incoming gliders from both left and right 00:57:13 and there are diagrams of the gliders on the net 00:57:37 (probably on wikipedia, although there was a site that went into some detail of classification) 00:57:46 Sigma_i means you have i alternating quantifiers starting with existential, and Pi_i starts with universal, that is, we have an i-ary predicate, and in Sigma_i we guess the first word w_1, universally quantify over the next w_2, then guess the next and so on, and finally check the predicate for the original input and all the w_i 00:58:19 i-ary predicate that's a P language that is 00:58:51 yeah this fits into how QBF is PSPACE complete 00:59:10 in NP you guess a string of polynomial length, in Pi_1 you universally quantify over all strings of polynomial length, and in general there's alternation up to some length 00:59:50 it does, although i'm not sure in which exact sense 01:00:10 in any case, the polynomial hierarchy is just the union of the Sigma_i 01:00:24 i mean what you are doing is just bounding the number of quantifier switches in a QBF problem, i think 01:01:02 yes, but why does not bounding it give you PSPACE, is there a connection between PSPACE and PH? 01:01:08 haha, M-x rot13-other-window 01:01:12 more than just inclusion 01:01:15 (having the same quantifier several times in sequence doesn't increase the count) 01:01:46 well not bounding means having a polynomial rather than constant bound, i guess 01:02:02 we also define some intermediate classes, namely Delta_(i + 1) = P^Sigma_i, and Theta_(i + 1) = polynomial deterministic languages except you can do a logarithmic amount of queries to Sigma_i 01:02:31 don't they always 01:02:45 don't they always what? define intermediate classes? :P 01:02:58 in any case, now i can finally list some results 01:03:10 anyone here know offhand how SMBC is licensed? 01:03:12 generalize to the max 01:03:32 oerjan: sure, but i'm not just giving Theta for fun, i'm using it in a second 01:03:55 as we already know from my previous rants, if there is a sparse co-NP-hard or NP-hard language, then P = NP 01:04:06 that is, the polynomial hierarchy collapses to P 01:04:15 (by induction) 01:04:17 ok 01:04:20 however 01:04:38 this is for hardness w.r.t. many-one reductions or bounded truth table reductions only 01:04:43 familiar with those? 01:04:51 i have to go to bed very soon 01:05:06 well i'm not doing anything complicated, just giving neat results 01:05:14 :P 01:05:34 um as in you have five minutes 01:05:39 ah 01:05:45 i don't know the details of that 110 proof i just know it's based on finding gliders that interact the way you want, and making a tag system out of them that requires infinite chain of incoming gliders from both left and right 01:05:48 is it actually proven? 01:05:49 well are you familiar with those? 01:05:54 I thought thirty was but not one-one-zero 01:05:56 or am I mixing those up? 01:06:06 nothing is known about 30 01:06:09 elliott: probably mixing up, 110 was the famous proof... 01:06:12 and it's not the next on the list even 01:06:36 with patented wolfram inflation 01:06:37 55 or something is the next one to be proven re-complete for the problem i just gave 01:06:51 it's the one with the dancing mushrooms 01:07:26 hm is that the totalistic one 01:07:33 oerjan: many-one reduction from L to L' means you have a deterministic polynomial time turing machine A s.t. w in L iff A(w) in L' 01:08:15 bounded truth table reductions mean you have some constant k such that you have a polynomial turing machine that can do exactly k queries to L', this amounts to just having a truth table 01:08:40 mhm 01:08:58 as for turing reductions, that is, having a sparse set S as the oracle, things get slightly more hairy 01:09:17 if there is a sparse NP-hard set S w.r.t. turing reductions 01:09:25 then PH = Sigma_2 01:09:32 (that is, NP^NP) 01:09:47 if there is a sparse NP-complete set S w.r.t. turing reductions 01:09:58 then PH = Omega_2 01:10:12 (logarithmic amount of queries to NP) 01:10:27 that is all 01:10:42 um i think you called Omega Theta above 01:10:49 yes i did, sorry 01:11:00 in my head it's the actual symbol 01:11:02 i misread 01:11:03 :P 01:11:06 heh 01:11:15 well thanks and good night 01:11:20 yup nighties 01:11:27 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: leaving). 01:11:42 will give the actual proofs once i grasp them a bit better 01:12:35 for a sparse NP-complete set, the proof is not very hard, but for a hard one, it is not very complete. erm i mean it's pretty complicated. 01:27:14 -!- ralc has quit (Quit: Leaving). 01:32:06 My linear algebra professor is pretty quick on grading. 01:32:16 I've already got the grade on my final. 01:32:24 It was earlier today. 01:32:29 "E" 01:32:46 monqy: ? 01:33:11 never mind 01:37:40 our cellular automata exam was graded in about 30 minutes 01:37:49 then again there were like 5 people taking it 01:38:15 True, it does help when you're taking a class with a handful of other people. 01:38:39 i wish i could take that class. it sounds awesome. 01:38:42 Now just waiting on one more class's grade. 01:39:23 the cellular automata class was pretty awesome 01:41:54 lecture notes can be found at http://users.utu.fi/jkari/ca/, highly recommended 01:42:03 there aren't really any books on ca 01:43:04 and if someone says a new kind of science i'm going to explode :D 01:43:20 ais523 should write one. 01:43:24 oklofok: try a new kind of science 01:43:26 pikhq: ais does ca? 01:43:33 erm what does ais know 01:43:37 elliott: Well, he's done at least one at the behest of Wolfram. 01:43:50 the guy who wrote those lecture notes should write a book 01:44:04 i doubt ais knows even the basics of ca theory 01:44:21 pikhq: eh? 01:44:23 although making specific ca's is of course a very useful skill 01:44:24 two,three wasn't a ca 01:44:32 and i'm sure ais is very good at that 01:44:39 Oh, it wasn't? Thought it was a CA. Anyways. 01:44:48 I'm not sure why I said that, anyways. 01:45:43 i'm gonna say it too now, so you don't get too self-conscious 01:45:50 ais523 should write a book on ca. 01:46:20 okay maybe finally worky time -> 01:47:00 so are emacs regexp the same as perl's? 01:48:04 CakeProphet: no 01:48:14 emacs is older than perl i think anyway 01:48:15 yes it is 01:48:23 they're more like posix regexps 01:54:55 wow. swedes are the most likely to be immune to HIV? damn you again, swedes! 01:56:38 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 02:00:23 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 02:03:02 -!- augur has joined. 02:19:58 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 02:19:58 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Changing host). 02:19:58 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 02:21:05 Oh hey, a perl regex extension. 02:21:43 because, honestly, I don't really feel like learning an outdated regex syntax.. 02:24:23 How many regex syntaxes are there? 02:24:27 its literally identical 02:24:30 apart from \ before ( and ) i think 02:24:42 Sgeo: As many as there are implementations of regular expressions. 02:25:03 tbf pikhq, they all have the basics the same 02:25:14 * is always kleene star 02:25:21 [] is always a character class 02:25:22 Yeah, they do have a reasonable common subset. 02:25:42 Helps that they're all pretty much reimplementations of ed regexps. 02:26:01 and you could at least do matching of arbitrary r.e.s with that common subset 02:26:42 | requires escaping as well 02:27:08 and the \ special characters are pretty different. 02:28:17 and it doesn't seem to have lookaround. 02:33:54 awww, the link is broken. No perl regex in emacs seems to exist. 02:37:57 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 03:07:14 Y'know, the Nazis had the most *amazing* hubris. 03:11:00 I'm going to write a language that compiles to LSL 03:11:24 what's so great about lsl 03:11:33 apart from it being used in second life 03:11:39 That's the only thing good about it. 03:12:27 the question now is what's so great about second life 03:14:03 virtual world zomg 03:14:45 and what could you possibly want to script in it 03:15:16 hey Sgeo what's the function to form a range sequence in racket 03:15:18 A helmet that takes you 340 trillion trillion trillion meters up 03:15:21 (for ([i ???]) ...) 03:15:28 in-range 03:15:36 oh right that 03:15:50 im making an HQ9+ interpreter dude 03:15:52 You started making fun of me again when I was pulling my hair out looking for it 03:15:54 why do you want to go 340 trillion trillion trillion meters up in second life 03:15:58 Sgeo: yep 03:16:02 except mine is better cuz its an actual racket language 03:16:08 oh snap 03:16:13 yeah 03:16:18 I gave up on mine when it stopped being fun 03:16:26 #lang reader "hq9+.rkt" 03:16:27 HQ9+ 03:16:30 totally a valid program now 03:16:32 if you install it globally 03:16:34 #lang hq9+ 03:16:35 HQ9+ 03:16:40 it even exports the final accumulator as a module 03:16:47 fuckin' integrated up the ass 03:17:00 I still haven't really read about or absorbed the module system 03:17:32 Y'know what's better than Second Life? 03:17:34 *Minecraft*. 03:17:46 pikhq, there's no scripting in Minecraft 03:17:58 Sgeo: There's Redstone. What else could you want? 03:18:25 The ability for redstone to affect any change I want in the area around it 03:18:33 HEATHEN 03:18:49 Sgeo: pistons 03:19:14 racket's documentation is awesome 03:22:05 -!- augur has joined. 03:24:13 hey Sgeo what's the function to concat n sequences 03:35:40 Probably something ending in -append or -append*? 03:36:11 is it stream-concat 03:36:28 I dunno what a sequence is but 03:36:30 it's stream-append 03:36:32 erm 03:36:33 sequence-append 03:36:39 oh 03:36:51 im just thinking now how to handle the ~elegance~ 03:36:53 that in-range thing said it made a stream I think?? 03:37:10 monqy, streams are sequences 03:37:36 and I searched for stream concat and found stream-concat I guess 03:37:44 maybe I should actually learn racket sometime 03:38:15 stream-concat is in one of Racket's SRFI thingies 03:38:23 srfi 41 03:38:38 scheme request for implementation right 03:39:18 begin (possibly implicit): bad syntax (illegal use of `.') in: (begin . #) 03:39:19 heh 03:39:23 monqy: yes 03:39:44 racket is intimidating 03:40:01 so much standard library & other extra stuff 03:41:22 things with # in them are especially spooky 03:42:35 -!- azaq23 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out). 03:43:56 hmm 03:43:59 does for actually result in anything 03:44:07 What is it called when an anonymous function can access and read variables bound at the higher level, like a closure, but can't modify them such that the higher level sees the modification? 03:44:52 oh, i need for/list 03:45:06 even sgeo knew to use for/list 03:45:09 Sgeo: can they still mutate the objects if they're mutable? 03:45:11 you should learn from the master 03:45:12 e.g. append to a list in a higher scope 03:46:05 Hmm. Not sure. Let's say yes (Although I want to know the answer for no too) 03:48:17 Sgeo: then python two scoping is what it is calle 03:48:17 d 03:48:20 aka terrible scoping 03:49:00 Well, keep in mind that I am n00bishly trying to imagine how I'd compile a language with lambdas into a language without them 03:49:34 I'd make a huge funcall() function, which would accept a string naming the function, a list of bindings for the "closure", and a list of arguments 03:49:34 ok, everything works but Q as a FULL RACKET LANGUAGE 03:50:19 or 03:50:21 you could just 03:50:25 transform scopes into mutable structures 03:50:32 with pointers to their parent scopes 03:50:41 and have a closure be code + scope 03:50:45 why would you even want mutability 03:52:02 oh right you probably can't optimize the lsl or whatever it is very well to make up for a pure functional language 03:52:17 I don't think LSL has tail recursion. Easy fix: Functions (after being transformed into something vaguely-CPS-like) just return the next function, instead of calling it 03:52:40 so trampolining? 03:52:44 Yes 03:52:50 iirc what trampolining is 03:53:23 you could also do TCO on it if you have the necessary control structures 03:53:30 (you probably don't) 03:54:38 Well, my current vague plan is to go code with continuations -> intermediate language with first class functions in CPS -> LSL 03:54:53 . hq9+.rkt:11:0: read: expected a `)' to close `('; indentation suggests a missing `)' before line 15; newline within string suggests a missing '"' on line 38 03:54:59 -> hats that take you into the air 03:55:01 Sgeo: Why do you need continuations 03:55:09 Oh, I see. 03:55:20 maybe it's useful for making hats or something 03:55:39 Sgeo: did you actually understand what i said about scopes 03:56:20 elliott, not.. really, no... but are you asking just to ask, or do you think it's relevant to why I want continuations (it isn't) 03:56:41 Sgeo: i was asking because otherwise you're going to implement it terribly? 03:56:49 but im actually surprised you've managed to not understand something that simple, gj 04:08:29 -!- elliott has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 04:09:09 -!- sebbu has quit (*.net *.split). 04:12:03 -!- sebbu has joined. 04:13:16 Fucking Linnaean taxonomy. 04:13:20 Why does anyone still use it? 04:15:39 inertia 04:15:45 Fuck inertia. 04:16:04 why is your country still serving me drinks in some unit called an 'ounce' 04:16:09 not to be confused with an 'ounce' 04:16:22 Because we hate everyone outside the country. 04:16:36 im in ur country 04:16:38 working ur jobz 04:16:40 Incidentally, the unit is a "fluid ounce". Not to be confused with the "dry ounce" or the "ounce". 04:17:00 (note: dry ounce archaic) 04:26:54 Oh, duh 04:26:58 I understand what you said 04:27:52 And e left 04:31:42 I can't use native assignment 04:31:50 Actually, I can't use much of native anything 04:32:09 Can't use native while 04:32:27 (At least, not at the continuation-using -> CPS level) 04:33:14 who needs assignment 04:37:20 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 04:37:43 LSL has a lot of issues. I'm not going to deviate that far from the host language 04:37:54 I'm just fixing the most pressing issue I see. 04:38:13 "no continuations" 04:38:21 Yes. 04:39:12 does it have first-class functions or proper closures or anonymous functions or anything? I imagine that would be a far more pressing issue 04:40:28 No first class functions or closures or anonymous functions 04:40:38 Those will be added, then continuations on top of that 04:40:55 http://pastebin.com/2i0AfxhS how to make a thing that repeats what others say 04:41:03 You can't just call a function that gets the last thing said 04:41:40 Or call a function that takes a closure as a callback 04:41:54 this is awful 04:42:10 * Sgeo agrees. 04:42:20 Unless you were mocking me 04:42:27 no this is legitimately awful 04:48:33 Hmm, considering that I'm not going to implement "last thing said" but instead "next thing said"... 05:42:56 -!- NihilistDandy has joined. 05:47:55 -!- augur has joined. 06:33:13 Um. 06:33:21 Does trampolining require CPS? 06:34:31 I think it requires tail calls so you'd need continuations if you want to do fancy stuff 06:34:47 why do you ask? 06:35:49 I was planning on making an intermediate language with TCO and first-class functions etc., but can't imagine how outside of a CPS style 06:36:22 hint: convert to CPS 06:36:40 Yeah, just do the continuation-passing transform. 06:39:19 Ok 06:39:25 * Sgeo has homework he needs to do rght now 06:39:31 Instead of thinking about this 06:39:31 :/ 06:41:31 Difficulty: I don't know where any of the papers are 06:43:56 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 06:47:50 CPS? Continuation Passing Style? 06:48:01 Yes 06:53:09 Do if, while, etc. get transformed into functions? I think they _might_ 06:53:32 I think so 06:54:08 I should start writing down my thoughts. Or start doing homework, that might be better. 06:56:16 what do you mean get transformed into functions 07:00:50 As in, I make a while(somecode, someothercode, args-for-cps...) thing 07:01:34 I can't leave a while(){} loop stay a native while(){} loop 07:02:27 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 07:02:28 I'm wondering now if I should make an intermediary language with functional stuff but no TCO, and put TCO+CPS on top of it 07:03:54 -!- augur has joined. 07:04:10 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 07:04:45 The important thing I think is that I can't do TCO without CPS or visa versa. Doesn't mean I can't do first-class functions without those. 07:06:04 Then again, I ultimately need a funcall kind of function for the functional layer, and I don't want to make another on top of that just... hmmm 07:07:22 pretty sure TCO just means you make tail calls use/replace the current call frame rather than making a new one (and keeping the old one around until you return, but since it's a tail call you won't be doing anything else, so keeping it around is useless) 07:08:08 I know what TCO means, but I can't really implement it without trampolining, and to do trampolining I need CPS 07:08:09 TCO goes nicely with CPS because iirc CPS means every call is necessarily a tail call 07:08:20 well you don't need CPS but 07:08:28 you'd only be able to do the trampolining on tail calls 07:08:33 I think 07:08:37 Hmm, hold on 07:08:54 Um, right >.> 07:09:21 For some reason, I was mentally applying trampolining to everything, including non-tail-calls 07:10:07 as for while loops, you don't need them at all 07:10:14 just use recursion 07:10:30