←2024-04-15 2024-04-16 2024-04-17→ ↑2024 ↑all
00:18:19 -!- amby has quit (Quit: so long suckers! i rev up my motorcylce and create a huge cloud of smoke. when the cloud dissipates im lying completely dead on the pavement).
02:50:29 <esolangs> [[,]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126188&oldid=113180 * Cleverxia * (-23) /* Python */
05:30:03 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
05:40:36 -!- tromp has joined.
05:48:29 -!- impomatic has joined.
05:51:57 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
06:00:49 -!- tromp has joined.
06:11:43 -!- GregorR has quit (Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)).
06:11:54 -!- GregorR has joined.
06:21:01 -!- tromp has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
06:40:25 -!- tromp has joined.
07:22:45 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
07:37:27 -!- impomatic has quit (Quit: Client closed).
08:23:37 -!- tromp has joined.
09:22:38 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
09:30:18 -!- tromp has joined.
09:56:27 -!- craigo has quit (Quit: Leaving).
10:41:00 -!- Lord_of_Life has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
10:42:35 -!- Lord_of_Life has joined.
11:54:05 -!- Koen_ has joined.
12:28:30 -!- Koen_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
12:28:50 -!- Koen_ has joined.
12:41:59 <esolangs> [[Hanzifuck]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126189&oldid=126178 * None1 * (+0) /* See also */
12:42:49 -!- Koen__ has joined.
12:45:43 -!- Koen_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
13:30:58 <esolangs> [[HZCode]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126190&oldid=125491 * None1 * (+8066) /* Infinite DNA Code */
13:31:27 <esolangs> [[HZCode]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126191&oldid=126190 * None1 * (+6) /* Pi calculator (slow) */
13:33:23 <esolangs> [[HZCode]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126192&oldid=126191 * None1 * (+105) /* Pi calculator (slow) */
13:35:39 <esolangs> [[HZCode]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126193&oldid=126192 * None1 * (+41) /* Stack operations */
13:55:50 -!- impomatic has joined.
14:01:41 <esolangs> [[2/9 of an esolang]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126194&oldid=126098 * Cleverxia * (+24)
14:06:54 <esolangs> [[UserEdited]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126195&oldid=125924 * Cleverxia * (+406)
14:12:10 <esolangs> [[AnyGolf]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126196&oldid=126149 * Cleverxia * (+102) the is same as 'b'?
14:13:15 -!- amby has joined.
15:14:47 <esolangs> [[Pointstack]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=126197 * Catto.4 * (+2435) Created page with "{{Template:Stub}} '''Pointstack''' is an esoteric programming language created by [[User:catto.4]] in 2024. It is similar to [[brainfuck]], except that it uses a stack instead of a tape. Items on the stack can only contain numbers. == Commands == {| class="wikitable"
15:42:44 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
16:03:31 -!- tromp has joined.
16:21:01 -!- Koen__ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds).
16:22:26 -!- impomatic has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds).
16:41:45 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
16:57:01 -!- impomatic has joined.
17:01:13 <esolangs> [[AnyGolf]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126198&oldid=126196 * OrangeDied * (+77) /* Commands */
17:10:12 <esolangs> [[Talk:HACKER LANG]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=126199 * OrangeDied * (+128) Created page with "you know machine code is a thing right ~~~~"
17:22:10 <int-e> `rot13 egb13
17:22:12 <HackEso> rto13
17:22:18 <int-e> hah
17:22:31 <int-e> `rot13 K5B!C%@NC[4\CMK54(C^)7PP)7}$RVPNE-FGNAQNEQ-NAGVIVEHF-GRFG-SVYR!$U+U*
17:51:24 <fizzie> Did that actually get filtered by some thing?
17:52:09 <int-e> Yes.
17:52:22 -!- tromp has joined.
17:52:58 <int-e> (Libera blocked such a message from me yesterday in another context, and I felt that this channel might appreciate the effect :-P)
17:54:40 -!- Guest8 has joined.
17:55:22 -!- Koen_ has joined.
17:55:25 <fizzie> I couldn't tell if it was that or just a well-timed coincidental failure of some kind.
17:55:49 -!- Guest8 has quit (Client Quit).
17:56:22 -!- Guest8 has joined.
17:56:39 <Guest8> hello I am here to learn about esoteric programming languages
17:57:34 <int-e> fizzie: I imagine that at some point it had a similar effect as the silly bogues DCC SEND stuff that caused personal firewalls to close client connections
17:58:08 <int-e> And that would explain why it's blocked. But it's speculation. :-)
17:59:38 <b_jonas> int-e: that would be my guess too
17:59:58 <int-e> "bogues" hrmpf
18:00:21 <int-e> though if any word deserves to be spelled wrong it's that one
18:02:31 -!- Guest8 has quit (Quit: Client closed).
18:06:46 <fizzie> `rot13 +++NGU0
18:06:47 <HackEso> ​+++ATH0
18:06:57 <fizzie> Guess that's not a concern any more.
18:10:12 <int-e> the fact that that one ever worked is still hilarious to me
18:19:45 -!- Koen_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
18:53:27 <Noisytoot> The +u user/channel mode will prevent messages to that user/channel from getting filtered
18:57:40 <int-e> Noisytoot: cool but probably not a great idea (most of the filtered stuff will be spam)
18:58:18 <int-e> and honestly I'd rather see that my message could not be sent rather than having it silently filtered for 99% of the channel users.
18:59:48 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
19:08:03 <Noisytoot> int-e: when set on a channel, it won't be filtered for anyone in that channel. the usermode just applies for PMs
19:09:43 <zzo38> I also think that it would help to display an error message, that it cannot be send because does not have +u mode
19:13:08 -!- tromp has joined.
19:16:45 -!- impomatic has quit (Quit: Client closed).
19:23:34 <esolangs> [[]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126200&oldid=124788 * Joaozin003 * (+19) Various improvements: proper capitalization of brainfuck, removed the table caption, made the A+B problem program, moved Category links and See also section below Acknowledgement and Turing completeness sections, consistent formatting
19:24:53 <esolangs> [[]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126201&oldid=126200 * Joaozin003 * (+18) Oops, I forgot to add the 2024 category!
19:30:49 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
19:38:37 -!- chiselfuse has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
19:39:01 -!- tromp has joined.
19:39:13 -!- chiselfuse has joined.
19:58:10 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
19:58:23 -!- Koen_ has joined.
20:12:03 -!- tromp has joined.
20:38:53 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
20:45:07 -!- tromp has joined.
20:58:56 <int-e> "C23 declares realloc(ptr,0) to be undefined behavior" :-(
20:59:27 <int-e> (seen on #haskell, I was unaware)
21:08:07 <int-e> Oh citation: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3588242
21:11:33 <b_jonas> int-e: that might make sense, because some realloc-like functions make that free the allocation, others behave consistently to malloc(0) in that it does keep a unique allocation of 0 size, so they don't want to mandate a behavior that some of the realloc implementations don't actually keep
21:11:49 -!- chiselfuse has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
21:12:19 -!- chiselfuse has joined.
21:14:19 <int-e> b_jonas: It's true that malloc(0) implementations disagree on whether they return something or a NULL pointer. Using that as an excuse to downgrade an implementation-defined behavior to undefined behavior is borderline insane.
21:15:11 <b_jonas> int-e: what? no, malloc(0) is mandated to allocate, it's realloc whose behavior differs
21:15:44 <b_jonas> hmm no, apparently the standard doesn't mandate even what malloc(0) does,
21:15:56 <b_jonas> but still I don't think that's the reason for the realloc difference
21:16:24 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
21:17:56 <b_jonas> as in, suppose you have a user code that implements a variable-sized array by just mallocing to the exact size. it doesn't matter if the malloc returns nullptr or a new allocation, free will work fine on it either way, and the code won't read or write through the pointer because the array is zero-sized. that doesn't cause a problem.
21:20:02 <b_jonas> the problem is if code tried to assume that realloc to zero size frees the allocation.
21:20:12 <int-e> "If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation-defined: either a null pointer is returned to indicate an error, or the behavior is as if the size were some nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access an object."
21:20:44 <int-e> (C17 final draft; the language in C11 is similar, I haven't checked others)
21:21:35 <int-e> Anyway, either of these behaviors gives you a sane uniform implementation of variable-sized arrays. Though one of them is mildly inefficient.
21:22:01 <b_jonas> int-e: that's for malloc, right?
21:22:08 <fizzie> There were a lot of twists and turns to the realloc(ptr, 0) story.
21:23:07 <fizzie> First there was a defect report on C11, DR 400 -- https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/summary.htm#dr_400 -- then a "fix" in C17, then a re-request for clarification -- https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2438.htm -- and then finally the proposal to make it undefined -- https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2464.pdf
21:24:04 <b_jonas> hmm, except not quite because malloc and realloc also return a null pointer if they fail to allocate, so you usually need to check for a null pointer returned anyway
21:24:06 <int-e> Hmm, C17... "If size is zero and memory for the new object is not allocated, it is implementation-defined whether the old object is deallocated. If the old object is not deallocated, its value shall be unchanged."
21:24:10 <int-e> (realloc)
21:24:29 <fizzie> C17 also marked it as an "obsolescent feature", as I recall.
21:25:17 <fizzie> C17 (N2176) 7.31.12p2: "Invoking `realloc` with a `size` argument equal to zero is an obsolescent feature."
21:25:20 <int-e> So C17 already misstepped.
21:26:00 <b_jonas> I dunno
21:26:40 <int-e> C11 talks about allocation so it'll be in line with the initial paragraph about allocation functions, so you have one of two behaviors for size 0.
21:26:58 <int-e> b_jonas: You realize that people depend on this, right
21:29:13 <b_jonas> int-e: yes, and I think different old code might depend on either of the two behaviors
21:30:07 <int-e> So if any compiler writer now decides to take advantage of the fact that zero-sized reallocs are undefined for optimizations... *shudders*
21:30:29 <int-e> I guess it's easier to look for than the signed overflow mess.
21:31:04 <int-e> (where the excuse was easy; it had never been defined behavior at all)
21:39:01 <Noisytoot> requiring payment for C standards is unacceptable
21:52:43 <fizzie> Discovered the other day that a `comp.lang.go` Usenet newsgroup got recently(-ish; late 2023) created.
21:53:01 -!- tromp has joined.
21:53:08 <fizzie> "The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2023-09-25 initiated a five-day period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8 Management Board voted to create the unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go. The vote was 2 in favour and 0 opposed. One member did not vote."
21:53:31 <fizzie> Not sure why, but that made me not think that Usenet is terribly thriving.
21:53:53 <fizzie> (There have not been very many posts in the group.)
21:53:59 <int-e> 90% of the times I hear about Usnet it's from zzo38.
21:55:25 <fizzie> It does seem that comp.lang.c still gets a moderate amount of... eh, let's call it discussion to be charitable.
22:03:17 <int-e> LOL, who wrote this?! "HQVGA (or Half-QVGA) denotes a display screen resolution of 240 × 160 or 160 × 240 pixels, as seen on the Game Boy Advance. This resolution is *half* of QVGA (320x240), which is itself *a quarter* of VGA, which is 640 × 480 pixels." (slightly edited from Wikipedia; emphasis mine)
22:03:39 <int-e> hmm
22:03:51 <int-e> ah no, never mind
22:04:13 <int-e> I somehow missed the fact that 240 wasn't divided by 2. Sigh.
22:04:48 <int-e> ^Z^Z^Z^Z
22:07:32 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
22:08:01 <b_jonas> int-e: https://logs.esolangs.org/libera-esolangs/2021-10.html#lfX says Q doesn't mean quarter, it means four times
22:08:48 <fizzie> Looks like it's sometimes a quad, sometimes a quarter.
22:09:24 <int-e> b_jonas: truly an authorative reference
22:11:16 <fizzie> I was going to suggest maybe it's quad for derivations of "HD" and quarter for derivations of "VGA", but at least that Wikipedia page claims it's quad also in constructions such as QSXGA, WQSXGA, QUXGA, WQUXGA and so on.
22:12:18 <fizzie> "QuadVGA[34] (also labelled as Quad VGA[149] or Quad-VGA[150][failed verification]) is a non-standard term used to refer to a resolution of 1280 × 960, since both sides are doubled from VGA. However, it is usually not as the abbreviation QVGA because this is strongly associated with the alternate meaning Quarter VGA (QVGA 320 × 240)."
22:12:58 <fizzie> "It is sometimes unofficially called SXGA−[citation needed] to avoid confusion with the SXGA standard (1280 × 1024)." Yes, I'm sure that's not confusing at all.
22:15:32 -!- sprout_ has joined.
22:18:46 <b_jonas> I'm also getting a flashback to the paper size fun at https://logs.esolangs.org/libera-esolangs/2024-02.html#lAZ
22:19:11 -!- sprout has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
22:44:29 -!- Koen_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
22:52:08 -!- Koen_ has joined.
23:07:27 -!- craigo has joined.
23:20:41 -!- Koen_ has quit (Quit: Leaving...).
23:22:33 -!- Sgeo has joined.
23:26:55 <esolangs> [[AnyGolf]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=126202&oldid=126198 * None1 * (-54) /* Commands */ delete duplicate, golf
23:30:24 -!- sprout_ has changed nick to sprout.
←2024-04-15 2024-04-16 2024-04-17→ ↑2024 ↑all