verisimilitude has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Brucio-61 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
scymtym has joined #commonlisp
Dynom_ has joined #commonlisp
Dynom_ is now known as Guest8244
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
Brucio-61 has joined #commonlisp
aartaka has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
aartaka has joined #commonlisp
random-nick has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
MajorBiscuit has joined #commonlisp
dec0d3r has quit [Quit: Leaving]
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
igemnace has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
tyson2 has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
vassenn has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
vassenn has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
MajorBiscuit has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
aartaka has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
orestarod has joined #commonlisp
bitmapper has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
rendar has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
rendar has joined #commonlisp
rendar has quit [Changing host]
rendar has joined #commonlisp
mon_aaraj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mon_aaraj has joined #commonlisp
gxt has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.5]
gxt has joined #commonlisp
nij- has joined #commonlisp
<nij->
Hello! Does optimizing compilation-speed to 0 make the object code safer?
<hayley>
In theory, no. In practise, probably not.
<White_Flame>
it doesn't authorize a high compilation-speed setting to reduce safety
<nij->
It doesn't seem very well-specified what each optimization quality actually means..
<nij->
in CLHS.
<White_Flame>
they're basically hints
<nij->
There must be some draw backs to set compilation-speed higher.. what is it?
<White_Flame>
generally less time spent trying to find optimizations
<White_Flame>
you could get faster execution by sacrificing compilation speed
<White_Flame>
s/could/might/ to be extra clear
<nij->
Oh, got it. But it's not so well-specified how each optimization level behaves, right?
<nij->
It's up to the implementations.
<White_Flame>
correct, and it shouldn't be well-specified, because safety/speed/debug/etc techniques of compilers will change over time and it'd be dumb to lock those settings in to whatever happens to be known at the time of writing
<nij->
oh! that's why. thanks :)
<beach>
Does the standard require a conforming implementation to document what they mean, though?
<nij->
Oh there's a difference between implementation-defined and implementation-dependent.
morganw has joined #commonlisp
analogsalad has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
euandreh has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
X-Scale` has joined #commonlisp
X-Scale has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
X-Scale` is now known as X-Scale
X-Scale` has joined #commonlisp
X-Scale has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
X-Scale` is now known as X-Scale
<pve>
Hi, (a b c &optional) is a legal ordinary lambda list, right? (i mean with nothing following the &optional keyword)
nij- has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<pjb>
let's see…
<pjb>
pve: yes, it seems it is legal: [&optional {var | (var [init-form [supplied-p-parameter]])}*]
<pve>
pjb: thank you
<pjb>
(parse-lambda-list '(a b c &optional) :ordinary) #| --> #<ordinary-lambda-list #x30200267E9ED> |#
<pjb>
(a b c &optional &key &aux) also is valid.
<pjb>
(but not &rest)
<pve>
right
tyson2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<jcowan>
I have a naming problem. Suppose we have a set s = {1,2,3} where the equality predicate is =. Then there are two operations for adjoining the element 1.0 to s: one returns {1,2,3} and the other returns {1.0,2,3}. The first is set-adjoin, but what should the other be called?
vassenn has joined #commonlisp
<pjb>
jcowan: it doesn't matter since the elements are = the sets are equal too!
<jcowan>
Yes. but it still matters because when you examine the set elements one by one you'll be able to differentiate between 1 and 1.0 using EQL.
pranavats has left #commonlisp [Error from remote client]