00:04:07 -!- Slereah_ has joined.
00:11:42 -!- RedDak has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
00:30:56 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
00:53:51 -!- lilja has quit ("KVIrc 3.2.0 'Realia'").
01:00:01 -!- psygnisf_ has joined.
01:00:01 -!- psygnisfive has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
01:24:40 -!- tusho has quit.
01:51:39 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
03:36:50 -!- psygnisf_ has changed nick to psygnisfive.
03:54:05 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
04:16:35 -!- calamari has joined.
05:34:55 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Connection timed out).
05:43:37 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving").
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
09:00:50 <dbc> The NFA is no more powerful than a DFA and is more of a hassle to program.
09:09:15 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
09:14:12 <AnMaster> dbc, this is esoteric, what did you expect ;P
09:14:52 <dbc> Good point.
09:15:01 <dbc> I'm working on MD5 in brainfuck at the moment :)
09:19:04 <psygnisfive> i dont see how theyre more of a hassle to program, either
09:23:14 <dbc> They're "nondeterministic", so you either have to convert them to a DFA, or you have to keep track of a list of possibilities which is almost as much work as converting them to a DFA.
09:51:35 -!- Dewi has quit (clarke.freenode.net irc.freenode.net).
09:51:38 -!- Dewi has joined.
10:39:33 -!- tusho has joined.
12:04:32 * tusho tries to make os x forget about a domain's ip so his hosts entry will take effect
12:23:51 <tusho> AnMaster: Because I didn't know the command.
12:48:09 <tusho> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tiyk/not_just_me_then_wordpress_development_process_is/c04tsb4 "Ode" to WordPress
13:36:48 <tusho> Meanwhile, there are no decent blogging systems.
14:16:28 -!- MikeRiley has joined.
14:29:52 -!- AnMaster has quit ("thunderstorm").
14:45:51 -!- pikhq has joined.
15:02:33 <MikeRiley> working on documentation at the moment,,,,which fingerprints would you like to see better defined???? besides how R,L, and M work in STRN....
15:03:00 <Deewiant> well in general you should say what the parameters mean :-)
15:03:20 <Deewiant> sometimes it's clear but (a b -- c d) generally isn't :-)
15:03:48 <Deewiant> for FRTH, not everyone is familiar with Forth so you might want to explain the operations...
15:08:28 <Deewiant> BTW, in general, RC/Funge-98 doesn't seem to use storage offsets for instructions that want vectors
15:08:36 <Deewiant> if that was intentional (and if so, why??) document it
15:10:02 <MikeRiley> actually,,,it should use them,,,,if it is not,,,then those would be considered bugs....
15:10:24 <Deewiant> I think I checked the source and approximately none of them use it
15:11:28 <Deewiant> you might want to say it explicitly in the doc anyway: "Where vectors pointing to Funge-Space are used, the IP's storage offset should be applied" or whatever
15:14:06 <MikeRiley> oh...I added a D command to the FILE fingerprint,,,,,to delete a file....
15:18:18 <tusho> stack diagrams are pretty simmple
15:18:23 <tusho> swap = (a b -- b a)
15:18:37 <tusho> stack before -- stack after
15:18:54 <MikeRiley> the Rc/Funge-98 manual does use stack diagrams for most all fingerprints...
15:40:45 <Deewiant> tusho: I did not say they are hard to understand
15:40:58 <Deewiant> but what does f = (a b -- c d) do?
15:41:14 <tusho> Deewiant: well, duh, obviously you need more docs in that case
15:41:55 <MikeRiley> made not also that FNGR alters how the fingerprint stack works....
15:42:26 <Deewiant> MikeRiley: try not to mess with existing fingerprints too much, it's hard to support a moving standard
15:43:47 <MikeRiley> i agree,,,just clarifying mainly,,,only altered fingerprint so far is FILE, with an additional command...
15:44:34 <MikeRiley> otherwise, just clarifying what my intents were....
15:45:01 <MikeRiley> which may still be foggy when i am done.....but at least a bit less foggy!!! eheheheheehheeheh
15:47:41 <MikeRiley> so now you can impliment FNGR!!! since its spec now defines how the fingerprint stack works if it is loaded...
15:47:56 <Deewiant> I don't think I will anyway >_<
15:48:27 <Deewiant> too much work to rewrite most if not all of the fingerprint handling
15:49:41 <MikeRiley> yeah,,,it messes with the interpreter quite a bit....but much of my funge-98 software uses it...
15:51:14 <MikeRiley> when using multiple fingerprints in a program it makes it much more convenient to switch around the fingerprints without having to keep loading and unloading the ones you need as you need them...
15:51:53 <MikeRiley> with FNGR you can now use something like 1( to specify which loaded fingerprint you want to use...
15:52:03 <Deewiant> I don't know, it's just 8 instructions to pick a new fingerprint :-)
15:52:10 <MikeRiley> instead of something like "OMAR"4#v(
15:53:02 <Deewiant> not that verbose considering how terse Befunge is in general ;-)
15:53:55 <MikeRiley> just a matter of preference i guess...i just like being able to switch among fingerprints with fewer instructions...
15:54:14 <MikeRiley> not to mention with FNGR you can custom make a fingerprint using commands from others to create a combined fingerprint to use....
15:54:40 <MikeRiley> in which sometimes i do not even need to switch between them, just copy the needed commands into a new fingerprint id...
15:55:05 <Deewiant> maybe you should make a FING or whatever which incorporates as much as FNGR as possible without changing the way fingerprints works
15:55:34 <Deewiant> s/as much as/as much of/; s/fingerprints works/fingerprints work/
15:57:58 <MikeRiley> with that one could even add a command to remove a single semantic rather than entire fingerprint's worth...
15:58:16 <Deewiant> the funge fingerprint stack is strictly more powerful, I think :-P
15:58:22 <MikeRiley> or push the semantic again,,,such that when it is removed by another unload, it would still be there....
15:58:35 <MikeRiley> interesting idea....i think i will formalize the definition of this,,,,could be usefull...
15:59:42 <MikeRiley> then for example you could load ROMA folloed by MODU, then unload just the M so that the rest of MODU is there and the M from ROMA would act for M....
16:00:14 <Deewiant> that's what I thought you would have done instead of changing FNGR to be feral :-)
16:00:29 <MikeRiley> FNGR to me was more usefull for what i was doing...
16:00:45 <MikeRiley> but this new fingerprint has its uses as well...
16:01:41 <MikeRiley> would you prefer something like 'AP to pop off the A semantic or something like 0P to pop off the A semantic, 1P to pop of b,,,etc...
16:02:18 <Deewiant> if in range A-Z, that, if in range 0-25, that + 'A', otherwise reflect
16:02:24 <MikeRiley> yea,,,i suppose both could be done,,,sine the number ranges would not overlap, would be possible to detect...
16:05:31 -!- Ilari has quit (""Won't be back for a while..."").
16:05:38 <MikeRiley> E - Duplicate single semantic (0-25 or A-Z)
16:05:38 <MikeRiley> O - Pop off single semantic (0-25 or A-Z)
16:05:38 <MikeRiley> M - Map semantic from one location to another (within top of each stack)
16:05:39 <MikeRiley> C - Copy semantic from one fingerprint to tos of another semantic
16:06:59 <Deewiant> so M pops before pushing the new semantic to the target instruction?
16:07:14 <MikeRiley> either do it that way, or push it on....
16:07:41 <MikeRiley> could have another instrution to replace it?
16:07:55 <Deewiant> not really necessary since you can just do a O then
16:09:03 <Deewiant> and C would be like "AMOR"4'X'AC so that A now does what X in ROMA does, or what?
16:10:21 <MikeRiley> if you loaded ROMA and then MODU but wanted the M from roma, and the M from from MODU, you could do something like 'M'AC making A act like the M from roma...
16:10:49 <MikeRiley> before the 'M you would need the fingerprint id on teh stack as well (like what ) uses)
16:11:13 <Deewiant> so it's exactly what I said? :-P
16:11:51 <MikeRiley> where as 'M'AM would make A act like the M from MODU...
16:13:33 <MikeRiley> what else would you like to see in it???
16:14:24 <Deewiant> maybe FRTH-like deep access commands for the individual fingerprint stacks?
16:15:11 <Deewiant> something that takes the nth semantic and brings it to the top, something that swaps the nth and the top one...
16:17:07 <MikeRiley> roll should work both directions,,,so negative number rolls in reverse...
16:17:26 -!- Corun has joined.
16:17:35 <Deewiant> just remember to document what roll does, at least by pointing to FRTH :-)
16:18:39 <MikeRiley> L - Clear all semantics in a given stack
16:20:01 <Deewiant> hmm, P is just shorthand for "LLUN"4)
16:20:28 <MikeRiley> maybe,,,depending on how things are implemented....
16:20:38 <MikeRiley> NULL would push on the new semantics...
16:21:00 <MikeRiley> except ) requires a fingerprint P does not...
16:21:18 <Deewiant> well, I think it's fair to assume that if something implements this fingerprint it also implements NULL :-P
16:21:44 <Deewiant> so P is just a one-character "LLUN"4)
16:21:48 <MikeRiley> which means P is just a 1 character command to do it...
16:22:37 <MikeRiley> F - Copy all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack
16:23:17 <MikeRiley> so for example,,,,load ROMA, load MODU then F would allow you to take all of ROMA's semantics and place them above MODU....
16:23:29 <Deewiant> so, isn't that exactly the same thing as (
16:23:45 <MikeRiley> maybe,,,,,could define it as copy instead of push???
16:23:57 <MikeRiley> which replaces all the MODU ones that are the same...
16:24:50 <MikeRiley> since whatever semantics that ROMA did not implement,,,,would still work with MODU...
16:25:19 <MikeRiley> yes....that would be more like it....
16:26:39 <Deewiant> and I'm not sure how useful that is :-P
16:26:40 <MikeRiley> B - Create a blank semantic on top of all A-Z
16:27:26 <MikeRiley> would push the transparent on top of all the stack entries....
16:27:50 <MikeRiley> then you could use C to fill it in...
16:28:14 <MikeRiley> yes and no....in D there will be 2 copies of all the semantics...with B there is one with a layer of transparent above it...
16:28:30 <Deewiant> transparency makes it feral again
16:29:08 <MikeRiley> actually,,,,,why would it make it feral???
16:29:26 <MikeRiley> still remains re-entrant for all IPs.....
16:30:01 <Deewiant> it's feral in that you have to mess with the fingerprint implementation
16:30:22 <MikeRiley> hmmmmmmmm,,,,,maybe yours,,,not mine....eheheheheheheheehheeheheh but understand your point...
16:30:37 <Deewiant> well, if you only have a standard fingerprint implementation
16:31:02 <Deewiant> how do you implement transparency in your Mycology-passing one :-P
16:31:08 <MikeRiley> when my fingerprint implementation was made, i allowed for transparent entries from the start....so no change in mine.....but i see you point....
16:31:55 <MikeRiley> in my fingerprint stacks,,,anything that is 0 is transparent and falls through to the next entry on the stack...
16:32:13 <Deewiant> ah, so if somebody implements a fingerprint with the id 0, that breaks :-)
16:33:03 <MikeRiley> using the transparent entries allowed me to implement FNGR....
16:33:19 <MikeRiley> as far as executing fingerprint commands,,,the zeros do not exist....
16:33:30 <MikeRiley> that is why it can pass Mycology now...
16:33:53 <MikeRiley> my fingerprint mechanism has not changed,,,,i just changed how the unload works if FNGR is not loaded....
16:36:49 <MikeRiley> in past version, doing an unload of a fingerprint removed all the corresponding stack entries for the given fingerprint,,,,now it removes them individually from each semantic,,,,
16:37:04 <MikeRiley> so works like the spec,,,but still implemented in a way that FNGR can still work...
16:42:30 <MikeRiley> officially i am calling the new fingerprint FING...
16:44:32 <MikeRiley> C - Copy semantic from one fingerprint to tos of another semantic
16:44:32 <MikeRiley> E - Duplicate single semantic (0-25 or A-Z)
16:44:32 <MikeRiley> F - Copy all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack
16:44:33 <MikeRiley> L - Clear all semantics in a given stack
16:44:35 <MikeRiley> M - Map semantic from one location to another (within top of each stack)
16:44:37 <MikeRiley> O - Pop off single semantic (0-25 or A-Z)
16:44:45 <MikeRiley> V - Move all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack
16:48:29 <Deewiant> if "AMOR"4F is the same as "AMOR"4)"AMOR"4( what is "AMOR"4V?
16:48:34 <MikeRiley> would be like roll,,,,except by fingerprint id instead of a stack location...
16:48:51 <MikeRiley> what if ROMA was deeper in the stack????
16:49:07 <Deewiant> a fingerprint is never in the stack
16:49:25 <Deewiant> yeah, and not necessarily completely
16:49:37 <MikeRiley> suppose you had ROMA, TURT, IIPC, MODU
16:49:56 <MikeRiley> and wanted to move ROMA to the top,,,V will do that giving TURT, IIPC, MODU, ROMA
16:50:09 <MikeRiley> removing the semantics from the stack where it originally was....
16:50:22 <MikeRiley> F would have given: ROMA, TURT, IIPC, MODU, ROMA...
16:50:23 <Deewiant> but how do you know where it originally was
16:50:31 <MikeRiley> easy....look at the stack entry...
16:50:58 <MikeRiley> it is easy to look at the stack entries to see which fingerprint a semantic belongs to...
16:51:06 <Deewiant> not in my interpreter it isn't :-P
16:51:14 <Deewiant> I just store function pointers
16:51:20 <Deewiant> 0xdeadbeef, quick, is it ROMA or MODU? ;-)
16:51:23 <MikeRiley> why not??? even if they are funtion pointers,,,you can still tell...
16:52:13 <MikeRiley> in mine it is really easy because i use function numbering rather than references,,,,but even with function pointers it would still be possible to tell....
16:52:24 <Deewiant> well yeah... loop through the stack for 'A', and compare the pointers to each fingerprint's 'A'...
16:52:29 <MikeRiley> you just now have to compare the function references against the funtions and see which one it belongs to....
16:52:52 <Deewiant> so then, how about if you've got ROMA and then unloaded MODU
16:53:00 <Deewiant> so you've got a semi-ROMA at the bottom of the stack
16:53:11 <MikeRiley> if you lose semantics, obviously they would still be lost....
16:53:22 <MikeRiley> then you will be moving a semi ROMA to the top...
16:53:32 <Deewiant> what if you have two different semi-ROMAs on the stack
16:53:42 <Deewiant> e.g. you have I and X from ROMA at depth 5 and V at depth 6
16:53:43 <MikeRiley> would take the first one encountered...
16:54:02 <Deewiant> do you get only I and X, or do you traverse all the way to the bottom of each stack?
16:54:04 <MikeRiley> if V was not in the one at 5,,,,,it would get copied from the one at 6...
16:54:27 <MikeRiley> i would traverse until you found all the relevent semantics,,,once one is found, it does not look deeper in that stack...
16:54:30 <Deewiant> see, this is the kind of stuff you need to document ;-)
16:57:15 <MikeRiley> technically,,,even FNGR could be made to work using this scheme....but will stick with the new FING for doing this kind of thing...
16:58:13 <MikeRiley> any other functions you would like in this fingerprint???
17:00:25 <Deewiant> I still think that's feral though
17:00:37 <Deewiant> because you're essentially putting an additional constraint on the fingerprint implementation
17:00:47 <Deewiant> namely, that you need to be able to compare two semantics for equality
17:01:24 <Deewiant> not if V is equivalent to ) followed by (
17:02:00 <MikeRiley> but using ) would remove semantics from another fingerprint if the one you are trying to copy is below it...
17:02:13 <Deewiant> that's what I originally thought you meant :-P
17:02:17 <MikeRiley> and they share the same command...
17:02:21 <Deewiant> but if not, then yes, F is also feral
17:02:49 <MikeRiley> does not change how the fingerprint stacks work....
17:03:04 <Deewiant> it's reasonable that you're working in a language or environment in which you can't compare functions for equality
17:03:24 <MikeRiley> just that the code to do it needs to be able to do F or V needs to be able to determine which fingerprint a semantic in the stack belongs to...does not change the implementation of the fingerprint stacks themselves...
17:03:24 <Deewiant> then you could have implemented CCBI fully, but not this FING
17:03:39 <Deewiant> yeah, but that can change the implementation of the fingerprint stack
17:04:35 <Deewiant> tusho: was it you who asked about HRTI and TRDS together? from the spec of HRTI: "This timer is not affected by 'time travel' contrivances."
17:04:46 <Deewiant> MikeRiley: well, you need to store additional data there
17:04:56 <Deewiant> maybe we're disagreeing about what feral means
17:05:42 <MikeRiley> maybe you need to store additional data,,,maybe you do not...in mine,,,you do not....if it is coded in c...you do not....if you are writing an interpreter then it is easy to be able to use fingerprint mechanaism that can deal with this...
17:05:57 <MikeRiley> possible we may have different meanings for it... eheheheeheheh
17:06:02 <Deewiant> hmm, I see now, I was using a wrong meaning of 'feral', yes
17:06:23 <MikeRiley> from my reading of the spec, feral refers to something that changes how the interpreter interprets something....like FNGR's changing ( and )
17:06:45 <MikeRiley> FING does not change how anything works...
17:06:58 <Deewiant> I was thinking that feral includes stuff that requires you to change internal interpreter data structures
17:07:04 <Deewiant> or may require you to, as the case may be
17:07:20 <MikeRiley> we do have different definitions!! eheheheheehhe
17:07:33 <Deewiant> yeah, and your definition is what the spec says so you're right I suppose :-)
17:13:16 <tusho> was it you who asked about HRTI and TRDS together?
17:19:15 <SimonRC> an esolang designed to reduce memory fragmentation
17:20:02 <SimonRC> (other than one where all pointers are at knonw locations)
17:25:35 -!- timotiis has joined.
17:25:56 -!- Sgeo has joined.
17:36:16 <Deewiant> or I guess that fails your criterion
17:41:01 <SimonRC> brainfuck is not good for the speed, which is what I wanted the reduced memory fragmentation for
17:41:29 <SimonRC> actually, I have been giving a little thought to pointer-free datastructures
17:43:18 <SimonRC> lots of lengths and offsets rather than pointers
17:43:41 <MikeRiley> Deewiant: i started to implement FING in Rc/Funge-98....now you are going to have to think about adding it to Mycology!!! eheheheheheh
17:44:33 <Deewiant> the fingerprints in Mycology are just a bonus, the core is what matters :-)
17:44:35 <MikeRiley> true,,,there are other extensions you do not test...
17:44:55 <MikeRiley> still very surprised you wrote a test for TRDS!!!
17:44:58 <SimonRC> tree = branch (length, tree tree) | leaf (length, data)
17:45:18 <Deewiant> well I had to given that I was insane enough to implement it :-P
17:45:52 <MikeRiley> eeheheheheheheh i never figured anybody would ever try to implement that one!!!
17:46:11 <Deewiant> and yet you wrote a spec and did a half-assed implementation yourself :-P
17:46:19 <MikeRiley> as it was,,,i only partially implemented it....
17:46:27 <Deewiant> if your implementation had just worked properly, maybe I wouldn't have done it myself ^_^
17:46:52 <SimonRC> how does it handle user input?
17:46:55 <MikeRiley> yeah,,,,,but my implementation was nowhere near complete...and i knew it!!!!
17:48:10 <SimonRC> waitamo, I can see a problem with HRTI
17:48:30 <MikeRiley> HRTI would be inconsistant when used with TRDS...
17:48:43 <MikeRiley> the two probably should not be used together...
17:48:47 <SimonRC> oh, wait, I was reading it wrong
17:48:53 <MikeRiley> but then,,,,you could deal with that as well...
17:49:28 <SimonRC> in that case, S doesn't look too useful.
17:49:32 <Deewiant> SimonRC: essentially, doing input in a program that uses TRDS is undefined. :-P
17:50:03 <MikeRiley> S would certainly not effect results from HRTI, but its intent was to allow an IP to do something while all other IPs were frozen...
17:50:50 <Deewiant> MikeRiley: maybe you should have appended to the TRDS specs "this is a half-implemented joke, please ignore it" ;-)
17:51:23 <MikeRiley> eheheheheheheheeheheheheheheheheheheh
17:51:37 <MikeRiley> but in theory....it is implementable!!!
17:51:55 <MikeRiley> as written,,,,it should be possible...
17:51:56 <Deewiant> I have one or two hacks of which I'm not at all sure though
17:52:14 <Deewiant> can't remember the details but there are a few 50-line comments in CCBI :-P
17:54:03 <SimonRC> well, it doesn't have an instruction to get the whole number of seconds
17:54:41 <Deewiant> whole number of seconds since the last second? ;-)
17:54:45 <MikeRiley> true it does not.....use TIME to get the seconds...
17:54:53 <Deewiant> MikeRiley: or just the y command...
17:54:59 <SimonRC> and if the whole number of seconds and fractional seconds are read by two instructins, the fractional result could roll over between them, giving you bogus results
17:55:21 <MikeRiley> if you are trying to time something,,, then use M and T
17:55:21 <Deewiant> yeah, I never really understood the point of S
17:55:38 <Deewiant> I think it's just so that you can give a more accurate measure of what the current time is
17:56:04 <MikeRiley> yeah,,,not real sure what the real intent for S was...
17:56:21 <MikeRiley> another Cat's Eye spec that is a bit ambiguous....
17:56:36 <Deewiant> no, that's quite clear actually :-P
17:56:48 <Deewiant> it doesn't tell you what you should do with an instruction but it's quite explicit about what it does
17:58:58 <psygnisfive> especially if you have some set operations available
17:59:13 <psygnisfive> and converting to a DFA isnt THAT hard either
17:59:44 <MikeRiley> C (fp n src dst -- ) - Copy semantic from one fingerprint to tos of another semantic
17:59:44 <MikeRiley> D ( -- ) - Duplicate all semantics
17:59:44 <MikeRiley> E (n -- ) - Duplicate single semantic (0-25 or A-Z)
17:59:44 <MikeRiley> F (fp n -- ) - Copy all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack
17:59:46 <MikeRiley> K (sem n -- ) - Copy nth semantic to top
17:59:48 <MikeRiley> L (sem -- ) - Clear all semantics in a given stack
17:59:50 <MikeRiley> M (src dst -- ) - Map semantic from one location to another (within top of each stack)
17:59:52 <MikeRiley> O (sem -- ) - Pop off single semantic (0-25 or A-Z)
17:59:56 <MikeRiley> S ( sem n -- ) - Swap nth semantic with top
17:59:58 <MikeRiley> R ( sem n -- ) - Roll semantic stack
18:00:00 <MikeRiley> V (fp n -- ) - Move all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack
18:00:02 <MikeRiley> W (sem -- ) - Swap top two semantics
18:00:04 <MikeRiley> Z ( -- ) - unload all fingerprints
18:00:56 <Deewiant> well, I do hope you'll explain more about CFKMRV than just that :-)
18:01:12 <Deewiant> for Z, I'd rather say "clear all semantic stacks" or something
18:01:20 -!- sebbu2 has quit ("@+").
18:01:36 <MikeRiley> Z ( -- ) - Clear all semantic stacks
18:01:37 <Deewiant> and maybe be explicit about that 0-25 map to A-Z
18:01:53 <Deewiant> otherwise people will be confused about what the 0-25 is about
18:02:39 <MikeRiley> When semantics are used the value can either be the Ascii values of A through Z directly
18:02:39 <MikeRiley> specifying which command is being worked on or the number 0-25, where 0=A, 1=B, etc.
18:03:16 <Deewiant> a bit of a run-on sentence but fine :-)
18:03:29 <MikeRiley> english was never my strongest subject!!! eheheheheehheeh
18:04:32 -!- timotiis has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
18:06:37 <MikeRiley> V and F: These commands expect a fingerprint in the same form as the ( command.
18:06:37 <MikeRiley> These commands will then search through all semantic stacks for commands belonging
18:06:37 <MikeRiley> to the requested fingerprint. V will then move the found entry to the top of the
18:06:37 <MikeRiley> semantic stack moving all others down. F will copy the semantics to the top of
18:06:37 <MikeRiley> the stack leaving the originals where they are. Both of these commands overwrite
18:06:38 <MikeRiley> what is currently on the top of the stack. Thse commands work on the semantic stacks
18:06:40 -!- Hiato has joined.
18:10:07 <MikeRiley> M: This command allows you to map a semantic from one command to another. This command
18:10:07 <MikeRiley> only works on the semantics that are on top of the stack. The first value popped off
18:10:07 <MikeRiley> of the stack specifies which semantic is being remapped. The 2nd value specifies which
18:10:07 <MikeRiley> semantic is to assign. The A-Z or 0-25 methoed of specifying the semantic is valid
18:10:07 <MikeRiley> for this instruction. Example: 'A'BM would map the B semantic to A such that when
18:10:08 <MikeRiley> A is executed in the program it will perform the function of B.
18:10:47 <Deewiant> MikeRiley: that makes M sound like IMAP
18:11:15 <Deewiant> "when A is executed in the program it will perform the function that B had when M was executed" or something would be better IMO
18:11:26 <MikeRiley> it is very similar to imap....except that it is not mapping, it is copying the actual semantic code to the destination....
18:11:45 <Deewiant> but that makes it sound as though it does exactly what IMAP does
18:12:09 <MikeRiley> Example: 'A'BM would map the B semantic to A such that when
18:12:10 <MikeRiley> A is executed in the program it will perform the function previously assigned to B.
18:12:41 <Deewiant> no, I still don't think that makes it clear that when B gets new functionality or loses its old, A remains the same. :-)
18:13:48 <MikeRiley> A was changed to have B's function
18:14:12 <Deewiant> but that doesn't make it clear that if you then unload B, A remains doing what B used to do
18:15:09 -!- sebbu has joined.
18:15:33 <MikeRiley> Example: 'A'BM would assign the semantic associated with B to the
18:15:33 <MikeRiley> A command such that when A is executed it would execute the function that was assigned to
18:15:34 <MikeRiley> B when the M command was executed. Unloading B would not affect the new definition of A.
18:15:58 <MikeRiley> C: This command is similar to the M command in that it allows you to change how the top
18:15:58 <MikeRiley> semantic on a stack works. The difference is that C takes the semantic from another
18:15:58 <MikeRiley> fingerprint rather than the top of semantic stack specified by the source.
18:18:38 <MikeRiley> just thought of a major problem with this fingerprint....
18:18:58 <MikeRiley> with it loaded,,,most of the remapping commands are going to be working on its own commands rather than the ones below it!!!!
18:19:29 <Deewiant> maybe you should make it smaller, then ;-)
18:20:31 <MikeRiley> or,,,,(not terribly wild about this idea,,,just a thought) it operates on teh semantic stacks as if the FING semantics were not on them....
18:21:10 <Deewiant> that'd mean it can't operate on itself at all
18:21:25 <MikeRiley> exactly....did not say it was a good idea...just a thought....
18:21:54 <MikeRiley> this is probably why FNGR works off the () commands,,,to avoid this problem....
18:22:15 <MikeRiley> but that is definitely feral behaviour...
18:23:18 <MikeRiley> actually,,,it could operate on itself....first duplicate all the semantic stacks,,,,perform whatever operation and then pop off FING....
18:23:47 <MikeRiley> but of course,,,it needs FING's duplicate all command!!! so that will not work....
18:24:05 <Deewiant> hmm, that would work, wouldn't it?
18:24:18 <Deewiant> because of course it can still execute the duplicate all command :-P
18:25:03 <MikeRiley> but if it were executing duplicate all as if FING was not on the stack,,,it would be duplicating everything underneaht it...
18:25:24 <MikeRiley> actually,,,you could load it twice....
18:25:34 <MikeRiley> then it would be duplicated without using FING to do it...
18:26:33 <psygnisfive> e.g. "formal language", "formal grammar", etc.
18:26:41 <psygnisfive> what do you think of, what does it mean to you?
18:26:54 <MikeRiley> to me it would meaned it is an accepted standard...
18:28:59 <MikeRiley> by doing "GNIF"4(:1( you could now use FING to modify the FING copy underneath it,,,,then drop off the first one and now you have a modified one to use...
18:29:41 <tusho> psygnisfive: computer parsable
18:29:48 <tusho> instead of just an informal, roughly-specified, humans-only
18:30:01 <Deewiant> MikeRiley: (: wouldn't work, it'd have to be ($:
18:30:57 <psygnisfive> tusho: elaborate on your distinction between "formal" and "informal"
18:31:08 <tusho> that's as much as i can give
18:32:14 <MikeRiley> to me,,,formal would indicate it adheres to a specified standard, nothing added, nothing removed...
18:41:23 -!- calamari has joined.
18:49:31 <MikeRiley> All FING commands operate as if FING were not on the semantic stacks. The equivalent
18:49:32 <MikeRiley> In order to actually modify commands within FING you would need to load two copies as in:
18:49:36 <MikeRiley> Make the modifications and then drop off the top copy with )
18:51:06 <MikeRiley> or else: FING operates on the sos downwards instead of the tos....
19:05:11 -!- AnMaster has joined.
19:07:40 <MikeRiley> been hashing out a new fingerpritn to make people's lives miserable!!! eheheheheeheheheh
19:09:07 <SimonRC> it seems the lang-o-meter has swung from brainfuck to befunge in the last few monthes
19:09:29 <MikeRiley> i bet it swings all over the place in cycles....
19:10:46 <tusho> SimonRC: it hasn't been brainfuck for ages.
19:11:39 <SimonRC> when was the big PEBBLE and co surge?
19:12:52 <SimonRC> I thought it must have been early 2008
19:13:09 <pikhq> It spanned from 2006 to 2007, IIRC.
19:13:38 <pikhq> And since when was it PEBBLE and co? :p
19:13:38 -!- atrapado has joined.
19:13:39 <SimonRC> especially when one is using TRDS
19:14:09 <tusho> i still want trdsfuck
19:14:14 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
19:14:17 <tusho> how about a lang that requires TRDS to be tc
19:15:15 <SimonRC> well, you could remove any non-constant jumps except those through time?
19:17:30 <SimonRC> and some of the switches pointone way by default, but point the other way when there is a train in a certain other position
19:18:11 <SimonRC> then you can only make decisions by timing your jump right to switch your earlier self to go another way or not
19:18:37 <MikeRiley> intersting concept!!! eheheheheheeh
19:19:20 <SimonRC> actually, I wonder if one can use the signalling rules from OTTD to make a turing-complete machine
19:19:31 <tusho> SimonRC: what is an infinite loop in that?
19:19:35 <tusho> one instruction per char, of course
19:34:22 -!- olsner has quit ("Leaving").
19:34:56 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
19:48:04 -!- MikeRiley has left (?).
19:49:27 -!- oklopol has joined.
19:50:15 <AnMaster> SimonRC, nice idea with switches
19:51:55 <tusho> i was curious about his idea
19:52:03 <tusho> so I asked him what an infinite loop would look like
19:52:51 <AnMaster> tusho, you would lay the track in a circle?
19:52:59 <tusho> AnMaster: that doesn't involve time travel
19:53:13 <AnMaster> tusho, well changing the switches does
19:53:20 <AnMaster> anyway infinite loop then is easy
19:53:54 <tusho> but I was hoping for something a bit more contrived
19:54:01 <SimonRC> an infinite loop would just be a loop of track actually
19:54:02 <tusho> to actually demonstrate the changing history part
19:54:05 <AnMaster> well I'm not much of an idea guy
19:54:48 <SimonRC> it's only conditional jumps that require switches, which require the possibility of a seond train, which requires time-travel
19:54:53 <AnMaster> it should use an XML format IMO, just to piss of everyone
19:55:35 <AnMaster> <segment startx="32" starty="42" endx="20" endy="42" />
19:56:03 <AnMaster> or you could use a sane format if you wanted :P
20:00:51 -!- Corun has joined.
20:04:39 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
20:10:17 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving").
20:18:46 <oklopol> i stand before you with dry balls
20:20:05 <SimonRC> line 1: The reference "balls" is abmiguous.
20:28:55 <oklopol> DISABMIGUATIONIFIXATION COMPLETE
20:29:42 <oklopol> SimonRC: when i say something obscure, it's usually means either nothing, or is a south park quote
20:33:01 -!- Comtech2 has joined.
20:33:09 -!- Comtech2 has left (?).
20:33:42 -!- ihope has joined.
20:33:48 -!- MikeRiley has joined.
20:34:03 <ihope> tusho, you have no sisters.
20:34:08 <ihope> Yes, I'm being sexist. Sorry.
20:35:31 <ihope> You do have a sister?
20:36:18 <AnMaster> (maybe she got a brother though?)
20:38:23 <ihope> Actually, would it be sexist to mostly-jokingly guess that nobody on #esoteric has any sisters?
20:40:30 <AnMaster> tusho, I need to ask you a question as a OS X user
20:40:38 <AnMaster> tusho, wtf is the command "ditto" on OS X
20:40:49 <AnMaster> To install the results, become root and do
20:40:55 <tusho> it's a bsd command
20:40:59 <Deewiant> http://www.google.com/search?q=man%20ditto
20:41:06 <tusho> from what I can tell
20:41:11 <tusho> ditto -- copy files and directories to a destination directory
20:41:11 <Deewiant> ditto -- copy directory hierarchies, create and extract archives
20:43:15 <AnMaster> tusho, I'm trying to finally build LLVM
20:43:56 <AnMaster> but as it is coded in C++ this will take ages heh
20:49:56 <oklopol> vacuuming fruit flies = the stuff
20:50:23 <SimonRC> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooook
20:59:02 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
21:05:05 -!- lilja has joined.
21:15:06 -!- MikeRiley has left (?).
21:20:37 -!- Hiato has quit ("Leaving.").
21:42:33 <oklopol> well it's pretty high up in the classical sense
21:42:52 <psygnisfive> when you hear the words "formal", "formalism", etc. e.g. "formal language", "formal grammar", etc. what do you think of, what does it mean to you?
21:43:03 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
21:43:09 <oklopol> it's a visual thought with lots of pretty graphs
21:43:38 <psygnisfive> what do you believe formalism means, in that usage?
21:44:04 -!- olsner has joined.
21:44:44 <oklopol> err, what it means? umm, i assumed like a formal grammar generation ruleset.
21:44:58 <oklopol> "formalism" doesn't strike as anything specific to me
21:45:09 <psygnisfive> right but what qualifies something as formal, as opposed to informal
21:45:16 <oklopol> grammar isn't usually generated of course
21:45:32 <oklopol> i meant a formal language generation ruleset, which is really cookietalk for formal grammar
21:45:45 <oklopol> psygnisfive: i honestly don't know
21:46:38 <oklopol> psygnisfive: don't read too much into that
21:46:47 <psygnisfive> well i AM in florida, so it is pretty hot here
21:47:58 <oklopol> psygnisfive: well what is this formalism everybody talks about nowadays?
21:47:59 <ihope> Computer programs are formal. Exact English descriptions are formal. Stuff like "really close" is not formal. Stuff like "A set is something that contains things" is not formal.
21:48:44 <oklopol> really close is clearly fuzzy logic
21:48:45 <psygnisfive> in that your final sentence is correct, but everything else is "maybe"
21:49:10 <oklopol> the last is simply a true sentence
21:49:35 <psygnisfive> noone i talk to seems to know what formalism is! :(
21:50:07 <psygnisfive> in a bit. im making a bumper sticker right now.
21:50:31 <oklopol> that makes no sense, but i guess it's funny.
21:51:00 <psygnisfive> if i were a scheme fanatic i'd be more inclined to say "My other car is a first."
21:51:14 <psygnisfive> but that's a bit too hard to get for the casual lisp driver.
21:51:22 <psygnisfive> car and cdr are mirror images of one another.
21:51:30 <oklopol> err, everyone knows what they are
21:51:37 <tusho> oklopol: 'My other car is a Toyoto'
21:51:40 <tusho> it's a parody of that
21:51:50 <oklopol> just saying that makes no sense imo
21:52:05 <tusho> well, technically it doesn't
21:52:09 <tusho> cdr isn't "another car"
21:52:12 <tusho> it's a different operation
21:52:22 <oklopol> indeed, it's just "haha car is like a list operation too xDxD"
21:52:31 <oklopol> but it doesn't actually make sense
21:52:33 <psygnisfive> the only REALLY difference is that they select different members of a cons pair
21:52:52 <psygnisfive> and you could swap all car/cdr operations and you'd get no changes in behavior
21:53:10 <tusho> you'd have to swap cons psygnisfive
21:53:22 <tusho> at which point, uhh, you've just swapped the two functions
21:53:42 <tusho> -> (cdr (cons 1 2)
21:53:49 <tusho> your swaps don't work
21:54:22 <tusho> so they return different values
21:54:29 <tusho> so swapping all car/cdr applications DOESN'T WORK
21:54:43 <tusho> psygnisfive: Then you've renamed 'car' to 'cdr'.
21:54:44 <oklopol> come to #esoteric to see people know everything and assume others don't know anything
21:54:53 <psygnisfive> but tell me how car and cdr REALLY different
21:54:55 <tusho> psygnisfive: And swapped cons' argument order.
21:54:59 <tusho> You can do that with any two functions.
21:55:17 <psygnisfive> car and cdr differ only in that they map to different members of a cons pair
21:55:33 <psygnisfive> cdr = the part of a cons not returned by car
21:55:48 <psygnisfive> but ultimately they're identical in behavior.
21:55:48 -!- AnMaster has quit ("night").
21:56:12 <psygnisfive> since a cons pair isn't _actually_ an ordered item, abstractly speaking
21:56:40 <SimonRC> I think the point is that the only way you can tell car-ops and cdr-ops apart is by working on an assymetrical known cons pair.
21:57:09 <psygnisfive> the particular order in a given representation is irrelevant
21:57:10 <SimonRC> you *can* tell car-ops and cdr-ops apart by operating on an assymetrical know cons pair
21:57:11 <ihope> psygnisfive, tusho: why are you arguing when you agree with each other?
21:57:29 <tusho> I'm pointing out that psygnisfive's use to claim that that makes car and cdr almost the same is silly
21:57:40 <psygnisfive> SimonRC: sure, if the assymetry is dependent on car-vs-cdr
21:57:57 <psygnisfive> if lists were instead built by having the CAR of each pair point to the rest of the list
21:58:08 <oklopol> tusho the perverted spell-checker
21:58:10 <psygnisfive> then all you need to do is swap cdring down a list for caring down a list
21:58:14 <ihope> If you swap car and cdr and then swap cons, some syntactical things, and maybe other stuff, you get exactly the same behavior.
21:58:19 <tusho> oklopol: xkcd reference actually
21:58:27 <tusho> Man, that's a sweet ass-car.
21:59:01 <psygnisfive> car and cdr are ultimately the same in what they actually DO, except that each is bound to a different part of the cons pair
21:59:05 <ihope> What a bad-ass ociation.
21:59:13 <psygnisfive> the cons pair itself being abstractly unordered
21:59:28 <psygnisfive> so theres no real way to tell them apart except in how your system uses car and cdr.
21:59:59 <tusho> psygnisfive: Sussman.
22:00:24 <tusho> psygnisfive: To find out, read SICP.
22:00:25 <ihope> When will it be that computers generally optimize all executables before running them?
22:00:37 <tusho> psygnisfive: Who should read SICP.
22:00:38 <oklopol> psygnisfive: anyway i think everyone here and really everywhere know what car/cdr are
22:01:01 <oklopol> the argument is so silly you could like feed it porridge and make it sit on your face.
22:01:02 <ihope> Or, better, while running them.
22:01:06 <tusho> psygnisfive: No, I've just read my SICP.
22:01:23 <ihope> tusho: if I read SICP, will we get along well?
22:01:28 <tusho> ihope: Read SICP to find out.
22:02:20 <oklopol> psygnisfive: i think it's you who he's accusing of sicp-ignorance
22:02:42 <tusho> oklopol: You are incorrect. To find out why, read SICP.
22:02:57 <oklopol> i think sicp is a long book with too little confusing mind-numbing math
22:02:59 <psygnisfive> ive been through sicp more than once. im far from ignorant of it. :P
22:03:20 <oklopol> tusho: i've read about half of it, so perhaps i'm not *completely* incorrect?
22:03:36 <psygnisfive> i mean, consider the lambda of a cons pair
22:04:09 <tusho> oklopol: Read SICP.
22:04:54 <psygnisfive> (define (cons a b) (lambda (op) (cond ((= op 'car) a) ((= op 'cdr) b) (else (error)))))
22:05:24 <psygnisfive> and that definition can replace the existing definition of cons and NOTHING would change in your lisp system
22:06:09 -!- atrapado has quit ("Abandonando").
22:06:17 <psygnisfive> well, ofcourse (car pair) has to be defined as (pair 'car) etc
22:07:16 <psygnisfive> tusho: that example was right out of SICP :D
22:07:34 <tusho> (must-read-sicp? 'psygnisfive) ;;=> #t
22:07:56 <tusho> psygnisfive: To find out, read SICP.
22:08:06 <oklopol> psygnisfive: read sicp to me
22:08:11 <oklopol> out loud, in skype, right now
22:08:32 <ihope> Can you send a recording to me? :-)
22:08:38 <tusho> psygnisfive can I say "Read SICP" to you over and over again over skype for 7.32 hours
22:08:53 <oklopol> tusho: in your nomad voice?
22:08:56 <tusho> Once upon a time, there was a Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP
22:09:00 <tusho> oklopol: In my Nomad++ voice.
22:10:14 <psygnisfive> tusho, do you expect people to take you seriously? :(
22:10:32 <tusho> psygnisfive: To find out the answer, read SICP
22:11:46 <ihope> psygnisfive: no, he doesn't.
22:11:49 -!- lilja has quit ("KVIrc 3.2.0 'Realia'").
22:12:16 <oklopol> no need for people who haven't read sicp to take you seriously.
22:12:50 <oklopol> it's like people who haven't read sicp |----------------| people who have
22:13:03 <oklopol> and err you know right is the right way to go
22:13:13 <tusho> ._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
22:13:22 <tusho> the . is the insignificant people who haven't read sicp
22:13:45 <oklopol> i'm assuming your writing the massive ascii-art O in your writor pad right now
22:14:03 <tusho> psygnisfive: WHY MUST YOU LIE?
22:14:29 <oklopol> psygnisfive: that box of gifts you sent me didn't be openod :<
22:15:48 <oklopol> god i love english, i can just turn it inside out as much as i like and it's all good
22:16:05 <oklopol> i mean, from my point of view :--)
22:16:50 <oklopol> well i could never say "its" for "it's", but like, structurally.
22:17:53 <oklopol> you linguistic silly-dangler
22:18:00 <oklopol> tell me about your formalities
22:19:33 <oklopol> psygnisfive: anyway don't worry i rape all languages equally
22:42:03 -!- RedDak has joined.
22:47:23 -!- Sgeo has joined.
22:49:08 <oklopol> i'm growing out of patience
23:05:15 <ihope> "Practitioners of fencing shake with the non-sword hand after a bout. This is due to the sword hand being employed holding the weapon." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handshake
23:05:25 <ihope> One wonders when this practice first came about.
23:08:51 <oklopol> when someone forgot to drop the weapon before the shake, probably
23:11:16 <ihope> I wonder if they wore protective clothing back then.
23:12:44 <psygnisfive> http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=627456#627456
23:12:52 <ihope> "In England it was not uncommon for fencing masters to take on other fencing masters in a vicious fight, often to the death, with regular intervals for medical staff to dress wounds." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing#History
23:16:53 -!- pikhq has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
23:17:40 <oklopol> "More complicated formal systems are things like phonology, where underlying forms (there's that word again) are replaced by surface forms"
23:18:47 <oklopol> On controversial idea I've com across here, which doesn't really exist in professional studies of language, is the idea of formal syntax. <<< unfortunate typo, makes this hard to parse
23:18:51 <oklopol> not that you probably care
23:19:25 <oklopol> well not actually that hard, since you can pretty much rule out "on" after reading two words
23:21:14 <oklopol> psygnisfive: there's nothing i don't know in that articly thingie.
23:21:43 <oklopol> i don't believe in meaning
23:24:30 <oklopol> i refuse to believe in a difference between formal and informal semantics
23:24:42 <oklopol> and, you know, once i trigger my belief, there's no way to stop me.
23:24:59 <oklopol> need to continue reading my book, you see
23:25:30 <oklopol> well yeah i guess there might be an *informal* difference ;)
23:26:35 <oklopol> i guess like hotdog, but you're eating a young male instead
23:27:09 <psygnisfive> is it a euphemism for you sucking my cock, by analogy to having a hotdog in your mouth?
23:27:27 <oklopol> well eating is usually for vagina or actual bite&swallow action
23:27:32 <tusho> oklopol/psygnisfive vore. wtf
23:28:03 <oklopol> right, i guess that's as probable an interpretation
23:28:19 <oklopol> well anyway, you pick, i need to continue reading
23:28:22 <olsner> I don't think that's commonly referred to as eating though
23:28:24 <oklopol> tusho: don't die, read SICP first
23:28:35 <tusho> oklopol: i've read my sicp
23:28:59 <olsner> or maybe I'm just not very well-acquainted with mouth/ass action...
23:29:05 <oklopol> i have a hard time bending that into a "read sicp" innuendo.
23:29:24 <oklopol> olsner: be careful what you say when psygnisfive's in play
23:29:41 <tusho> yeah, psygnisfive will give you a demonstration otherwise
23:30:23 <psygnisfive> im totally not suggesting sex with you if you're not of legal age.
23:30:32 <tusho> psygnisfive: whyever not
23:30:46 <psygnisfive> because underage kids like you get rape instead.
23:30:53 <olsner> my age is quite legal where I'm from :)
23:31:03 <psygnisfive> tusho's age is quite legal in the netherlands.
23:31:12 <oklopol> how can it be so fucking hard to leave, i don't exactly find this all that entertaining
23:31:22 <oklopol> mildly entertaining, yes, but the book is better
23:31:30 <tusho> if I was female and in japan i'd be legal!
23:32:04 <oklopol> this is some basic thingie about discrete math
23:32:48 <oklopol> but sometimes you gotta eat shit if you believe in __import__("random")
23:32:57 <oklopol> psygnisfive: that's what i said earlier
23:33:22 <oklopol> actually, now that i think about it, it was because i stopped dl'ing midway
23:33:25 <psygnisfive> also, tell your girlfriend if she wants to hear my gayvoice she just needs to uh.. give me something to talk about. lol
23:33:48 <tusho> jews have jew magic, right. Is there any gay magic?
23:34:07 <tusho> it's less powerful than jew magic though, surely. jew magic is the most powerful kind of magic in the world.
23:34:24 * olsner finds jew magic wildly disappointing
23:34:25 <oklopol> psygnisfive: i tend to forget the reason and remember the consequence
23:34:34 <oklopol> you can relink me if it's still up
23:34:36 <tusho> psygnisfive: what about gay jews
23:34:41 <tusho> are they like, invincible
23:34:45 <psygnisfive> they're some of the most powerful wizards on the planet
23:34:57 <tusho> psygnisfive: what about gay jew pirate ninjas
23:35:26 <tusho> let's all visualise a gay jew pirate ninja in our head
23:35:29 <tusho> fuck the universe!
23:35:30 <psygnisfive> some crackpots think that Japan is the lost tribe
23:35:48 <tusho> how the fuck do you lose japan
23:35:57 <tusho> that's like "OH, GERMANY. YEAH, I FORGOT ABOUT THAT PLACE"
23:36:01 <tusho> "WHERE IS IT AGAIN?"
23:36:19 <psygnisfive> but then they found it in someones backyard in new jersey
23:36:35 <tusho> see this is why we need the qdb
23:36:42 <tusho> I was totally ready to put those two last lines up.
23:37:03 <olsner> actually, that could be a workable plot for a film: a bad (but hilarious, or at least somewhat funny) comedy about the disadvantaged gay jew pirate ninja, fighting for his right to live his life style
23:37:16 <tusho> and jQuery (go fuck me.)
23:37:29 <tusho> because something really weird is happening with sinatra
23:37:31 <tusho> think it's my code though
23:37:34 <tusho> i didn't look at it today
23:37:37 <tusho> too busy doing other stuff
23:37:41 <tusho> i'll get it finished tomorrow
23:38:28 <tusho> for a start, there is absolutely no reason to use rails nowadays considering its horrible performance, thread unsafety and generally horridness
23:38:33 <tusho> if you really want to deveop apps like that, use merb.
23:38:44 <tusho> secondly, an architechture like that is overblown to the max for a qdb
23:38:52 <psygnisfive> rails performance wont really MATTER for an #esoteric qdb
23:38:54 <tusho> sinatra is trivial and restful.
23:39:00 <psygnisfive> since its not like its going to be a fucking massive website
23:39:04 <tusho> psygnisfive: it's superfluous and shouldn't be used anyway.
23:39:20 <tusho> sinatra is designed exactly for trivial apps like this
23:39:24 <psygnisfive> i see your fingers moving but no qdb's coming out!
23:39:36 <tusho> psygnisfive: its 23:39, I'm going soon
23:39:42 <tusho> and when I worked on it last time my mind was fuzzy
23:39:58 <tusho> it'll probably be done tomorrow.
23:40:49 <tusho> psygnisfive: i'm glad you're so insecure in your sexuality that you have to attribute it to others
23:41:15 <tusho> yes, but i'm male.
23:41:57 <tusho> 100% male, 100% female
23:41:57 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Ex-Chat").
23:42:05 <tusho> without any crippling genetic disorders!
23:42:10 <tusho> psygnisfive: WRONG
23:42:50 <olsner> hmm, so 1 * tusho = 200% * tusho? that'd mean tusho = 0
23:44:21 <psygnisfive> do you have a jew tied up in a cage or something, doing your bidding?
23:44:24 <oklopol> :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
23:44:45 <tusho> psygnisfive: it was my pal.
23:44:53 <oklopol> reading about this trivial shit about proofs makes my coding fingers tickle
23:44:54 <olsner> wow, oklopol is really smiling! what's the big deal?
23:45:00 <oklopol> i wanna make an automated prover
23:45:14 <oklopol> :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEAL
23:46:44 <oklopol> shouldn't be too hard to make it prove everything, right?
23:46:56 <oklopol> i'll probably get all the truths out by tomorrow
23:47:40 <psygnisfive> also, automata generators would be fun to make
23:47:43 <tusho> psygnisfive: your gayness.
23:47:47 <psygnisfive> something that converts to and from NFAs and DFAs
23:48:30 <oklopol> like prove cool truths given a set of sexy axioms
23:48:41 <oklopol> although i'd probably make it a bit more specifix
23:48:56 <oklopol> well i'd probably be happy with just doing something like even * even = even
23:49:26 <oklopol> even x = (exists i: x = 2i)
23:49:51 <oklopol> then prove forall x: even x & even y => even x*y
23:50:04 <oklopol> fail @ quantification there, but you get it
23:51:44 <oklopol> ideal scenario would be getting a few simple proofs like that by making a kinda ruleset for how i would prove that myself, and then find something more complex that it manages to prove
23:51:58 <oklopol> => masturbation material for the rest of my life
23:53:00 <oklopol> well not really, i consider programs my children more like, so i don't find them that sexy
23:53:19 <olsner> but you could have sex with other people's programs? as long as they're old enough?
23:54:37 <oklopol> but no i'm actually quite indifferent about other people's programs
23:54:50 <oklopol> so really it's not probable i'll ever have sex with a computer program
23:55:16 <oklopol> unless i like make it, then leave for a few years, and come see it again
23:55:24 <psygnisfive> not have sex with a computer program? what a weirdo
23:56:01 <oklopol> a real-life fetish for program source would be so cool
23:56:28 <oklopol> i've had the occasional boner of course, but i don't actually open programs as porn
23:56:43 <tusho> i dooooo psygnisfive
23:57:18 <tusho> psygnisfive: oh baby, that's so well-typed
23:57:46 <oklopol> types are one of the sexiest things imo
23:58:12 <oklopol> that is, restricted type systems
23:58:21 <oklopol> python doesn't really work for me
23:58:29 <tusho> oh, restrict my type baby
23:58:38 <tusho> oh, oh, yeah, restrict that polymorphism good
23:59:02 -!- RedDak has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
23:59:03 <olsner> this conversations brings new meaning to the term Bondage and Discipline language :)
23:59:06 <psygnisfive> then again, i also rarely use variables for more than one type
23:59:34 <olsner> anything excluding sexual allusions?
23:59:34 <oklopol> psygnisfive: it's not that they're nice in practice, i just think it's a fairly hot concept.
23:59:47 <oklopol> graphs are my favorite for pretty much all purposes ofc