Newest at the top
| 2025-04-29 16:58:04 +0200 | Googulator71 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-4a24-1dc7-297e-fae3-e794.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-04-29 16:57:55 +0200 | yin | (~yin@user/zero) zero |
| 2025-04-29 16:57:46 +0200 | Googulator71 | (~Googulato@94-21-139-144.pool.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-04-29 16:52:16 +0200 | yin | (~yin@user/zero) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 16:49:34 +0200 | notdabs | (~Owner@2600:1700:69cf:9000:748c:9883:fc80:2b20) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-04-29 16:48:56 +0200 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) j1n37 |
| 2025-04-29 16:46:31 +0200 | internatetional | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:1ee8:b348:b41a:5570) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 16:46:27 +0200 | notdabs | (~Owner@2600:1700:69cf:9000:748c:9883:fc80:2b20) |
| 2025-04-29 16:46:14 +0200 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 16:31:40 +0200 | tabaqui | (~tabaqui@167.71.80.236) tabaqui |
| 2025-04-29 16:16:00 +0200 | jacopovalanzano | (~jacopoval@cpc151911-cove17-2-0-cust105.3-1.cable.virginm.net) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-04-29 16:14:42 +0200 | Leary | (~Leary@user/Leary/x-0910699) Leary |
| 2025-04-29 16:13:18 +0200 | Inst | (~Inst@user/Inst) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-04-29 16:13:12 +0200 | Leary | (~Leary@user/Leary/x-0910699) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 16:05:21 +0200 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-04-29 15:54:55 +0200 | fp | (~Thunderbi@2001:708:20:1406::1370) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 15:45:24 +0200 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |
| 2025-04-29 15:40:24 +0200 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 15:33:57 +0200 | lxsameer | (~lxsameer@Serene/lxsameer) lxsameer |
| 2025-04-29 15:33:49 +0200 | ColinRobinson | (~juan@user/JuanDaugherty) (Quit: praxis.meansofproduction.biz (juan@acm.org)) |
| 2025-04-29 15:33:18 +0200 | <ski> | but you still don't want to build up more and more context, when doing a long-running loop (e.g. with `IO'), if you can avoid it, and in such cases, reasoning about tail calls can be quite important to prevent space leakage (in the Haskell sense) |
| 2025-04-29 15:32:01 +0200 | <ski> | a tail-recursive loop, which will always be bulky, not return any part of the result until the whole loop is done |
| 2025-04-29 15:31:55 +0200 | <ski> | Liamzee : anyway, tail calls and tail recursion is still important in Haskell .. but tends to be a bit less important, due to non-strictness (typically implemented using laziness) making it easier to often describe loops as incremental algorithms, only computing the result piece-by-piece, so that the caller will drive looping over this, demanding more result pieces, for as long as it wants to, as opposed to |
| 2025-04-29 15:31:36 +0200 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) mari-estel |
| 2025-04-29 15:29:10 +0200 | <ski> | (yes, `case' in Haskell doesn't directly correspond to `case' in Scheme (which is more like a C `switch'), but rather `match', but that doesn't matter too much here, for the comparision) |
| 2025-04-29 15:28:28 +0200 | <ski> | in Haskell, `C[] ::= [] | C[] E ... E | if C[] then E else E | case C[] of P -> E; ... P -> E | ..' |
| 2025-04-29 15:27:39 +0200 | <ski> | in Scheme, you have evaluation contexts like `C[] ::= [] | (E ... E C[] E ... E) | (if C[] E E) | (case C[] (P E ... E) ... (P E ... E)) | ..' |
| 2025-04-29 15:27:27 +0200 | mange | (~user@user/mange) (Quit: Zzz...) |
| 2025-04-29 15:26:13 +0200 | internatetional_ | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:9930:c729:580e:9aa0) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 15:25:26 +0200 | internatetional | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:1ee8:b348:b41a:5570) internatetional |
| 2025-04-29 15:25:07 +0200 | <ski> | in Haskell, it's basically the same, except that the "evaluating procedure call arguments" part is skipped. a call `f x' will not evaluate `x' (but will still evaluate `f' itself, which could cause stack usage) |
| 2025-04-29 15:24:59 +0200 | internatetional | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:701e:e3ed:2d04:6885) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 15:24:02 +0200 | <ski> | btw, in Scheme, calling a procedure doesn't push stack, either, but evaluating procedure call arguments (and well as the function expression), and introducing new local variables (e.g. with `let'), or doing branching (like `case',`if',`cond', or e.g. a library pattern-matcher as `match'), does. or, in general, introducing a non-tail context |
| 2025-04-29 15:21:51 +0200 | internatetional_ | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:9930:c729:580e:9aa0) internatetional |
| 2025-04-29 15:21:00 +0200 | <ski> | not using stack is not the same as not using call stack |
| 2025-04-29 15:19:49 +0200 | mari-estel | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 15:18:46 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:81f6:6a75:5fad:c9b4) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2025-04-29 15:16:49 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> welp, no shade intended |
| 2025-04-29 15:16:47 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> that's interesting, i thought Haskell didn't use stack? |
| 2025-04-29 15:16:02 +0200 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) j1n37 |
| 2025-04-29 15:15:30 +0200 | <ski> | with uniqueness, you're promised that your reference to an item/value have not been duplicated in the *past* (but you could still duplicate in future, unless, say, you have to return it as still being unique). with linearity, you promise to not duplicate it in the *future* (but it could already have been duplicated in the past, before giving up the ability to duplicate) |
| 2025-04-29 15:14:40 +0200 | jespada | (~jespada@r167-61-148-73.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 15:14:00 +0200 | <ski> | yin : note that linear types are not quite the same as affine or unique ones (those two are quite similar, the only difference is whether you're allowed to drop an item on the floor or not) |
| 2025-04-29 15:13:02 +0200 | <ski> | "in comparison to an imperative language where stack allocation is happening" -- yea, calls don't push stack in Haskell, but *pattern-matching* (`case'-`of', as well as the sugar for that) still does |
| 2025-04-29 15:12:56 +0200 | j1n37- | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-04-29 15:12:33 +0200 | jespada_ | (~jespada@r179-25-126-65.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) jespada |
| 2025-04-29 15:12:01 +0200 | <ski> | "i was trying to analogize the IO type to free monads actually" -- yea, the last `IO' version i sketched is basically the free monad version |
| 2025-04-29 15:11:13 +0200 | <ski> | "since you actually have runRW# fun #Real World# or something like that, then you call a continuation" -- yea, GHC uses a state-passing internal implementation, which is only valid if the `RealWorld#' is being passed around uniquely (and this still doesn't properly describe exceptions, nor concurrency, nor things like `unsafeInterleaveIO',`unsafePerformIO') |
| 2025-04-29 15:10:58 +0200 | internatetional | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:701e:e3ed:2d04:6885) internatetional |
| 2025-04-29 15:10:49 +0200 | internatetional_ | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:5b6:e1f9:afcb:86c5) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |