Newest at the top
| 2025-11-14 06:37:49 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 06:35:59 +0100 | mange | (~mange@user/mange) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-11-14 06:32:37 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 06:29:22 +0100 | <jreicher> | If I've understood the semantics given by the extended CEK machine in the "static vs dynamic" paper, the shift is evaluated outside the context of a reset before the kind of substitution we're talking about, because it's a call-by-value machine. |
| 2025-11-14 06:29:15 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d75-159-126-101.abhsia.telus.net) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 06:26:54 +0100 | fired | (~la@173-255-196-82.ip.linodeusercontent.com) (Quit: ZNC 1.9.1+deb1 - https://znc.in) |
| 2025-11-14 06:21:35 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 06:17:08 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 06:13:56 +0100 | amadaluzia | (~amadaluzi@user/amadaluzia) amadaluzia |
| 2025-11-14 06:13:48 +0100 | amadaluzia | (~amadaluzi@user/amadaluzia) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-11-14 06:08:37 +0100 | jmcantrell | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 06:06:35 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 06:04:35 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 06:01:36 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 05:59:07 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2025-11-14 05:56:28 +0100 | Nachtgespenst | (~user@user/siracusa) (Quit: Bye!) |
| 2025-11-14 05:51:01 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 05:44:04 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 05:38:29 +0100 | Pixi | (~Pixi@user/pixi) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 05:35:36 +0100 | ezzieyguywuf | (~Unknown@user/ezzieyguywuf) ezzieyguywuf |
| 2025-11-14 05:33:09 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 05:28:41 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 05:17:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 05:15:53 +0100 | <jreicher> | I suspect if we dig into the semantics we'd find a barrier to the kind of substitution we're talking about |
| 2025-11-14 05:15:12 +0100 | <jreicher> | Sorry that should asy reset instead of shift |
| 2025-11-14 05:14:24 +0100 | <jreicher> | Are you sure it can? There's a "shift v -> v" reduction rule, so if you had "\f shift f" and were reducing to a strong normal form, you'd get \f f, no? |
| 2025-11-14 05:13:18 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 05:12:16 +0100 | <monochrom> | Yeah |
| 2025-11-14 05:02:07 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:57:56 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 04:56:48 +0100 | <jreicher> | monochrom: Oh wait. Are you saying shift/reset might be dynamic in the sense that shift can be substituted into the scope of a reset? |
| 2025-11-14 04:47:25 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:42:33 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 04:31:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:29:49 +0100 | td_ | (~td@i53870933.versanet.de) |
| 2025-11-14 04:28:00 +0100 | td__ | (~td@i53870917.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:27:30 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-62-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) |
| 2025-11-14 04:27:16 +0100 | trickard_ | (~trickard@cpe-62-98-47-163.wireline.com.au) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-11-14 04:27:10 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 04:24:16 +0100 | jmcantrell | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) jmcantrell |
| 2025-11-14 04:23:27 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:23:01 +0100 | jmcantrell | (~weechat@user/jmcantrell) (Quit: WeeChat 4.7.1) |
| 2025-11-14 04:18:36 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-11-14 04:16:49 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:11:25 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2025-11-14 04:07:36 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-11-14 04:06:54 +0100 | annamalai | (~annamalai@157.32.194.69) annamalai |
| 2025-11-14 04:02:18 +0100 | <jreicher> | I meant to say "...and then the continuation is constructed..." |
| 2025-11-14 04:01:45 +0100 | <jreicher> | I think lexically scoped is correct. When shift captures the evaluation context it includes the reset, which is certainly a lexical scoping before anything else is done, and then the continuation is captured with that reset in exactly the same spot, which is effectively the same "spirit" as capture-avoiding substitution for beta-reduction, and so the lexical scoping is preserved. At least that's my take on it. |
| 2025-11-14 04:00:34 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |