Newest at the top
| 2025-12-04 18:48:07 +0100 | tzh | (~tzh@c-76-115-131-146.hsd1.or.comcast.net) tzh |
| 2025-12-04 18:47:53 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-479c-d9ec-010d-f188-ffcb.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-12-04 18:46:49 +0100 | Square2 | (~Square4@user/square) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 18:38:56 +0100 | divlamir_ | divlamir |
| 2025-12-04 18:38:55 +0100 | divlamir | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 18:35:47 +0100 | divlamir_ | (~divlamir@user/divlamir) divlamir |
| 2025-12-04 18:34:05 +0100 | __monty_1 | __monty__ |
| 2025-12-04 18:34:00 +0100 | <__monty_1> | I find myself doing `fold . unfoldr` is there a combinator I'm missing that does this? My intuition from foldr->fold suggests unfold but none of those expects a Monoid constraint. Corecursive from recursion-schemes seems similar to Monoid maybe. So then it would be `hylo`? |
| 2025-12-04 18:26:44 +0100 | kuribas | (~user@ip-188-118-57-242.reverse.destiny.be) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 18:26:01 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d75-159-126-101.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2025-12-04 18:25:11 +0100 | marlino | (~marlino@96-8-193-101.block0.gvtc.com) |
| 2025-12-04 18:22:35 +0100 | wickedjargon | (~user@207.194.126.4) wickedjargon |
| 2025-12-04 18:14:42 +0100 | X-Scale | (~ARM@50.65.114.89.rev.vodafone.pt) (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- \o/) |
| 2025-12-04 18:14:36 +0100 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-04 18:14:21 +0100 | gehmehgeh | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) gehmehgeh |
| 2025-12-04 18:12:01 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 18:11:28 +0100 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) gehmehgeh |
| 2025-12-04 18:10:48 +0100 | gmg | (~user@user/gehmehgeh) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-04 18:09:57 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-12-04 18:07:50 +0100 | AlexZenon | (~alzenon@85.174.183.177) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 18:07:38 +0100 | AlexZenon_2 | (~alzenon@85.174.183.177) |
| 2025-12-04 17:59:35 +0100 | trickard_ | trickard |
| 2025-12-04 17:58:18 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-12-04 17:57:11 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-12-04 17:44:36 +0100 | infinity0 | (~infinity0@pwned.gg) infinity0 |
| 2025-12-04 17:42:37 +0100 | sindu | (~sindu@2.148.32.207.tmi.telenormobil.no) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 17:40:04 +0100 | lambda_gibbon | (~lambda_gi@2603:7080:ee00:37d8:313d:1898:c3f8:5287) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 17:38:32 +0100 | <EvanR> | tell the next person who complains that IS the special syntax for that xD |
| 2025-12-04 17:38:12 +0100 | <EvanR> | so you can just write that |
| 2025-12-04 17:38:02 +0100 | <EvanR> | it's kind of lucky / good that [0 .. n-1] even works without more parentheses or something |
| 2025-12-04 17:37:00 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 17:36:22 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | (I'm not actually suggesting Haskell get this, we have enough special syntax as is) |
| 2025-12-04 17:36:09 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: what about [0 ..< n]? |
| 2025-12-04 17:35:49 +0100 | lambda_gibbon | (~lambda_gi@2603:7080:ee00:37d8:313d:1898:c3f8:5287) |
| 2025-12-04 17:34:06 +0100 | CiaoSen | (~Jura@2a02:8071:64e1:da0:5a47:caff:fe78:33db) CiaoSen |
| 2025-12-04 17:34:06 +0100 | <EvanR> | this is where C syntax wins, since it's not implicit |
| 2025-12-04 17:33:46 +0100 | <EvanR> | in the case of sequence of integers |
| 2025-12-04 17:33:38 +0100 | <EvanR> | I actually hate the implicitly not including the right number |
| 2025-12-04 17:33:03 +0100 | <EvanR> | just kidding |
| 2025-12-04 17:32:58 +0100 | <EvanR> | clearly we need special syntax [0 .. n) |
| 2025-12-04 17:32:38 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) |
| 2025-12-04 17:32:06 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-04 17:24:05 +0100 | infinity0 | (~infinity0@pwned.gg) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-12-04 17:20:52 +0100 | lucabtz | (~lucabtz@user/lucabtz) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-12-04 17:13:49 +0100 | <lucabtz> | i got reminded just now so i sent that |
| 2025-12-04 17:13:40 +0100 | <lucabtz> | yeah i agree it is annoying |
| 2025-12-04 17:12:45 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | Rust has 0 ..< n syntax |
| 2025-12-04 17:12:29 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | yeah and this is why I always have to [0 .. n-1] and it's annoying :p |
| 2025-12-04 17:12:15 +0100 | <lucabtz> | anyhow i dropped the idea for now as it was taking me too long |
| 2025-12-04 17:12:02 +0100 | <lucabtz> | tomsmeding in defense of the inclusive upper bound in haskell [x..y] includes y |