2025/03/24

Newest at the top

2025-03-24 23:37:06 +0100 <geekosaur> I vaguely recall it being one of the plugins I disabled for my heavily customized lambdabot instance back then
2025-03-24 23:36:04 +0100 <geekosaur> I think it stopped building at some point
2025-03-24 23:32:36 +0100sp1ff`(~user@c-67-160-173-55.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-03-24 23:32:06 +0100random-jellyfish(~developer@user/random-jellyfish) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:30:31 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:30:24 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:28:48 +0100tabaqui(~tabaqui@167.71.80.236) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:28:40 +0100 <EvanR> according to a 2006 mailing list post I found announcing a new version of lambdabot, it has "an unlambda interpreter"
2025-03-24 23:26:14 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee
2025-03-24 23:24:58 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-03-24 23:18:44 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:13:51 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-03-24 23:05:41 +0100kh0d(~kh0d@212.200.65.82) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:03:20 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2025-03-24 23:03:08 +0100Sgeo(~Sgeo@user/sgeo) Sgeo
2025-03-24 23:01:00 +0100kh0d(~kh0d@212.200.65.82) kh0d
2025-03-24 22:58:27 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-03-24 22:56:48 +0100target_i(~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) (Quit: leaving)
2025-03-24 22:54:37 +0100ChaiTRex(~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) ChaiTRex
2025-03-24 22:54:16 +0100ChaiTRex(~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-03-24 22:52:47 +0100 <EvanR> answer: no
2025-03-24 22:46:28 +0100takuan(~takuan@d8D86B601.access.telenet.be) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-03-24 22:45:49 +0100JuanDaugherty(~juan@user/JuanDaugherty) JuanDaugherty
2025-03-24 22:45:11 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2025-03-24 22:45:09 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2025-03-24 22:43:10 +0100 <EvanR> can you somehow prove the opposite law
2025-03-24 22:42:39 +0100ChaiTRex(~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) ChaiTRex
2025-03-24 22:42:12 +0100ChaiTRex(~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-03-24 22:41:09 +0100alfiee(~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee
2025-03-24 22:39:46 +0100merijn(~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn
2025-03-24 22:37:44 +0100 <tomsmeding> I'm saying that the behaviour of 'check' pins down the semantics of 'Stack' (modulo initial/empty stack), not that every invocation of 'check' says something meaningful
2025-03-24 22:37:35 +0100michalz(~michalz@185.246.207.221) (Remote host closed the connection)
2025-03-24 22:36:57 +0100 <EvanR> as long as the [Maybe a] isn't infinite
2025-03-24 22:36:37 +0100 <tomsmeding> but neither does the output order :p
2025-03-24 22:36:19 +0100 <tomsmeding> which, like, doesn't matter for my claim
2025-03-24 22:36:08 +0100 <tomsmeding> then you process the list of instructions in reverse
2025-03-24 22:35:53 +0100 <EvanR> is just using foldr instead of foldl' enough
2025-03-24 22:35:29 +0100 <EvanR> I was going to write a similar piece of code to convert a stack into a list but forwards
2025-03-24 22:34:45 +0100 <tomsmeding> yes
2025-03-24 22:34:40 +0100 <EvanR> the initial stack is where you can do root exploits
2025-03-24 22:34:27 +0100machinedgod(~machinedg@d108-173-18-100.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod
2025-03-24 22:33:26 +0100 <tomsmeding> point being that as long as there are enough Justs before Nothings to make sure you never "pop into" the initial stack s, you can determine the output of 'check' purely from your law
2025-03-24 22:33:00 +0100 <tomsmeding> list of instructions, essentially
2025-03-24 22:32:52 +0100 <tomsmeding> Just is a push, Nothing is a pop
2025-03-24 22:32:46 +0100 <EvanR> what is this [Maybe a]
2025-03-24 22:32:01 +0100 <tomsmeding> yes, the output is reversed, and no I don't care
2025-03-24 22:31:47 +0100petrichor(~znc-user@user/petrichor) petrichor
2025-03-24 22:31:26 +0100 <tomsmeding> claim: the behaviour of 'check' pins down the entire semantics of Stack: check :: Stack a -> [Maybe a] -> [a]; checks s = snd . foldl' (\(s', out) -> maybe (let (y,s'') = pop s' in (s'',y:out)) (flip push s')) (s, [])
2025-03-24 22:31:13 +0100yangby(~secret@115.205.72.232) yangby
2025-03-24 22:29:43 +0100cipherrot(~znc-user@user/petrichor) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)