Newest at the top
| 2026-01-24 02:22:38 +0100 | Pozyomka | (~pyon@user/pyon) pyon |
| 2026-01-24 02:22:11 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) peterbecich |
| 2026-01-24 02:19:42 +0100 | Pozyomka | (~pyon@user/pyon) (Quit: WeeChat 4.8.1) |
| 2026-01-24 02:16:14 +0100 | emmanuelux | (~em@user/emmanuelux) emmanuelux |
| 2026-01-24 02:11:34 +0100 | emmanuelux | (~em@user/emmanuelux) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-01-24 02:08:23 +0100 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) (Quit: ljdarj) |
| 2026-01-24 02:03:34 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-01-24 02:03:22 +0100 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) humasect |
| 2026-01-24 01:50:54 +0100 | hakutaku | (~textual@chen.yukari.eu.org) (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2026-01-24 01:40:49 +0100 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-01-24 01:23:36 +0100 | <Leary> | chromoblob: The `LFP`/`GFP` section is written so as to highlight their strong duality; to better understand other aspects you can "simplify" the code by hand. Starting from `ListF` the rest is supposed to be readily understood as-written, but familiarity with the underlying concept of recursion schemes would certainly help. |
| 2026-01-24 01:07:52 +0100 | tremon | (~tremon@83.80.159.219) (Quit: getting boxed in) |
| 2026-01-24 01:06:34 +0100 | Tuplanolla | (~Tuplanoll@85-156-32-207.elisa-laajakaista.fi) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2026-01-24 00:57:11 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d75-159-126-101.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2026-01-24 00:51:21 +0100 | Zemy_ | (~Zemy@72.178.108.235) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2026-01-24 00:51:21 +0100 | Zemy | (~Zemy@72.178.108.235) |
| 2026-01-24 00:42:55 +0100 | Inline | (~User@2001-4dd7-bc56-0-9df6-8597-3530-1076.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de) Inline |
| 2026-01-24 00:31:43 +0100 | fp | (~Thunderbi@89-27-10-140.bb.dnainternet.fi) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2026-01-24 00:31:39 +0100 | timide_ | (~timide@user/timide) (Quit: WeeChat 4.7.2) |
| 2026-01-24 00:30:59 +0100 | tydes | (~tydes@user/ttydes) ttydes |
| 2026-01-24 00:15:59 +0100 | mrmonday | (~robert@what.i.hope.is.not.a.tabernaevagant.es) mrmonday |
| 2026-01-24 00:14:28 +0100 | mrmonday | (~robert@what.i.hope.is.not.a.tabernaevagant.es) (Quit: .) |
| 2026-01-24 00:10:34 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-030a-3891-da7f-f3f3-f997.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2026-01-24 00:10:34 +0100 | Googulator63 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-030a-3891-da7f-f3f3-f997.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2026-01-24 00:08:14 +0100 | fp | (~Thunderbi@89-27-10-140.bb.dnainternet.fi) fp |
| 2026-01-24 00:05:49 +0100 | Gravifer | (~Gravifer@user/Gravifer) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2026-01-24 00:00:41 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-01-23 23:54:05 +0100 | fp | (~Thunderbi@2001-14ba-6e24-3000--198.rev.dnainternet.fi) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 23:49:43 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> but i guess the real point is that there's no real advantage to let (@) = (,) in traverse (uncurry when) [ cond @ action...] |
| 2026-01-23 23:48:19 +0100 | <geekosaur> | and macros can be typed (see typed TH, granting that TH is not very usable as macro systems go) |
| 2026-01-23 23:47:54 +0100 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) vanishingideal |
| 2026-01-23 23:47:51 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> i love my traverse abuse, turning control flow into data is fun |
| 2026-01-23 23:47:30 +0100 | <geekosaur> | functions aren't typed in scheme, amnd as monochrom says, there's no way to tell just from looking at code using it whether it's even a function |
| 2026-01-23 23:47:04 +0100 | <monochrom> | (Sure, I can look up the docs. Now add the empirical fact that programmers don't write docs.) |
| 2026-01-23 23:46:38 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> the real question is whether hof zoo is a key advantage |
| 2026-01-23 23:46:35 +0100 | <monochrom> | What I don't like about Lisp/Scheme macros is that if you write so much as "(f x)" then I have no idea what's its evaluation order because I can't remember whether f is a function or a macro. |
| 2026-01-23 23:46:24 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> i guess macros vs functions is more of a smaller difference, macros tend to be untyped, functions tend to be typed |
| 2026-01-23 23:45:02 +0100 | <monochrom> | And like geekosaur said, there is also a symmetric difference. |
| 2026-01-23 23:44:29 +0100 | <monochrom> | Conversely, Lisp doesn't have a good laziness story, so macro is better! |
| 2026-01-23 23:43:55 +0100 | <monochrom> | Haskell does not have a good macro story, so lazy function is usually better in Haskell. (Try implementing "for" as a TH macro, then try using it.) |
| 2026-01-23 23:43:09 +0100 | <geekosaur> | what I was getting at is that I consider them just different mechanisms. each may have advantages in some situations and disadvantages in others |
| 2026-01-23 23:42:31 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> well, runtime macros |
| 2026-01-23 23:42:23 +0100 | Gravifer | (~Gravifer@user/Gravifer) Gravifer |
| 2026-01-23 23:42:15 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2026-01-23 23:42:15 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> i mean any language with strong macros can define custom control structures |
| 2026-01-23 23:42:03 +0100 | Gravifer | (~Gravifer@user/Gravifer) (Client Quit) |
| 2026-01-23 23:41:38 +0100 | <geekosaur> | Haskell's laziness lets you define some things that must be built-in control structures in other languages as functions. But the same can be said of Tcl and Ruby, in their own ways |
| 2026-01-23 23:41:26 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> well, i was wondering if for/for_ being functions in Haskell were advantages, HOF zoo has the issue that you'd actually need to know what the HOFs used are |
| 2026-01-23 23:41:15 +0100 | Gravifer | (~Gravifer@user/Gravifer) Gravifer |
| 2026-01-23 23:40:48 +0100 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |