kenran has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kenran has joined #commonlisp
<bitblit1>
Oh, I see.
<beach>
selwynning: There is a period when you must modify your paper to comply with the referee remarks. During that period, you can make other changes as well, but you must obviously make sure that the referee reports are still valid.
<beach>
selwynning: I just checked the dates, and yes, until April 9, you *must* make changes. Unless of course the referees had no remarks, which would be highly unlikely.
<beach>
Unfortunately, ELS does not have a second referee round to determine whether the referee remarks were acted upon, either as modifications to the paper or as explanations to the referee(s) indicating why the remark was not acted upon.
<bitblit1>
Okay, so I basically want to create a wrapper around a condition which has a hard to understand name and error message. I also want to add restarts to it. How do I do this cleanly?
<bitblit1>
Should I create a condition and then handller-case the code and throw that condition, wrapping the handler-case with a restart-case?
<beach>
selwynning: So I guess technically you could not act upon the remarks and there would be no documented way of rejecting your paper because of that.
<bitblit1>
or is there a better way?
<beach>
selwynning: Does that make sense?
qiduo has joined #commonlisp
<beach>
When I see a referee remark that I consider unfounded, I take it as a sign that other readers might have the same remark, so I tend to add a phrase to the papers like "While it might seem appropriate to ..., we think this is not required because..."
qiduo has quit []
Lumine has quit [Quit: bbl]
<selwynning>
beach: it makes sense, thank you
<beach>
Pleasure. Good luck!
<selwynning>
i ask because i may have changes of my own i would like to make by then
<beach>
Yes, nobody will object, unless you make substantial changes to the core of your paper.
<selwynning>
right
Shinmera has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.8]
Shinmera has joined #commonlisp
msavoritias has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
jello_pudding has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
msavoritias has joined #commonlisp
Shinmera has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.8]
Shinmera has joined #commonlisp
X-Scale has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has quit [Quit: Colleen]
Colleen has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has quit [Client Quit]
Colleen has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has quit [Client Quit]
jeosol has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has quit [Client Quit]
Colleen has joined #commonlisp
Colleen has quit [Client Quit]
<beach>
There is this concept among busy authors called an "accept"-able paper. It means, you submit the paper when you think it will get an "accept", even though you haven't finished it. Then you have another month to finish it. :)
Colleen has joined #commonlisp
notzmv has joined #commonlisp
chipxxx has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<scymtym>
is the result of finishing the paper a "present"-able paper?
<beach>
Sure, sounds good.
<scymtym>
and to complete the CLIM theme, at the conference, you make a "presentation"
<beach>
Beautiful!
random-nick has joined #commonlisp
<hayley>
I made some changes to my paper...though seemingly not as many as I thought I made.
<selwynning>
on that note
jello_pudding has joined #commonlisp
<selwynning>
whether i am invited to present or not will determine whether i can claim expenses back on my attendance
<beach>
?
<selwynning>
so it would be nice to know roughly when the invitations will be sent out
<beach>
If your paper is accepted, there will be a presentation programmed for you in the conference program.
<selwynning>
which always involves a talk?
<beach>
Yes.
<selwynning>
ok, great
<beach>
A slot for a talk is usually 30 minutes, of which 5-10 minutes are dedicated to questions. So you should plan for a 20 minute talk to make sure you don't run over, and to compensate for those other authors who did run over.
<beach>
It is infuriating when a speaker does not stick to the time limit. It tells me that that speaker thinks of this presentation as being more important that those of other authors, so that it doesn't matter if those other authors are given less time.
<beach>
*more important than...
rogersm has joined #commonlisp
<jackdaniel>
you may always turn it around and if you want to infuriate beach then plan for 30minutes! ;)
<jackdaniel>
you need to fit in a time-"frame"
<hayley>
Given that I hope to present on a stop-the-world (but parallel) garbage collector, it would be in character for me to go over a time limit.
<scymtym>
maybe you can read the ROOM and schedule pauses when the listener process is sleeping
* scymtym
will stop now
occ has joined #commonlisp
kevingal has joined #commonlisp
skin has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
kevingal_ has joined #commonlisp
dcb has quit [Quit: MSN Messenger 3.8]
X-Scale has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<jackdaniel>
READ THE ROOM (:UPCASE) -- too much? :)
<kami_>
hayley: I get 'Made too many states' with one-more-re-nightmare when compiling "(\\s*([0-9a-zA-Z\\+/=]){4}\\s*)+"
<kami_>
It's supposed to match base64
<hayley>
Ouch. Well, it doesn't understand \s so I'm afraid that won't work anyway.
<kami_>
ah, I see
<hayley>
Yes, that doesn't look like a very complicated regex.
<kami_>
must have overlooked the \\s restriction
Inline has joined #commonlisp
<hayley>
I'll have to poke around later; I have a report to finish for university today, and I had best head to bed now.
<hayley>
Colleen: time in Melbourne
<Colleen>
The time in Melbourne is 2023.03.24 01:14:36.
* hayley
ponders if she has a stale member list. It's 1:14am, party tricks aside.
<hayley>
There we go.
Lumine has joined #commonlisp
kevingal_ has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
kevingal has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
Gleefre has joined #commonlisp
<kami_>
:)
Lord_of_Life has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Lord_of_Life has joined #commonlisp
smlckz has left #commonlisp [WeeChat 3.6]
kenran has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
edwlan[m] has joined #commonlisp
n0den1te_ has joined #commonlisp
n0den1te_ is now known as n0den1te
NotThatRPG has joined #commonlisp
n0den1te has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Posterdati has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<loke[m]>
Colleen: time in SG
<Colleen>
The time in SG is 2023.03.23 23:30:04.
<loke[m]>
How do you ask colleen for the time?
Posterdati has joined #commonlisp
kami_ is now known as kami
kenran has joined #commonlisp
kami has quit [Changing host]
kami has joined #commonlisp
<Shinmera>
Eh? you just did it?
<jackdaniel>
Colleen: can you do an "Eh?"?
<Colleen>
Unknown command. Possible matches: 8, say, deny, clhs, set, mop, get, grant, time, tell,
gnoo has joined #commonlisp
Cymew has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dipper_ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
lagash has joined #commonlisp
JeromeLon has joined #commonlisp
<JeromeLon>
I found several mistakes in the LOOP grammar in CLHS (the text doesn't match the grammar, and implementations seem to agree with the text). Is it well known? Has anyone tried to write a more correct one?
<beach>
Can you give an example?
<beach>
JeromeLon: Also, many Common Lisp implementations use MIT LOOP which does not agree with the standard.
<JeromeLon>
"Termination-test control constructs can be used anywhere within the loop body", but in the grammar, it's a main clause, so it must come after all variable clauses, so it would forbid (loop repeat 3 for i ...)
<beach>
MIT LOOP allows clause orders that are not allowed by the standard.
<beach>
Interesting!
<beach>
Thanks for pointing that out!
<beach>
Definitely a case for WSCL.
<beach>
I don't recall seeing that in the text, and Khazern respects the grammar. But there is a lot of code out there that don't respect the grammar, so this ambiguity suggests that we should resolve it in favor of the text.
<JeromeLon>
another case where grammar and text differ is for for-as-arithmetic. "At least one of the prepositions must be used; and at most one from each line may be used in a single subclause." The grammar has a very different set of conditions.
<JeromeLon>
anyway, it looks like it's not a hot topic, maybe there are no other differences, I'll assume that.
<minion>
JeromeLon: WSCL: Well-Specified Common Lisp. Pronounce it as "whistle". A project to revise the Common Lisp standard in a non-controversial way. See https://github.com/s-expressionists/wscl
<ixelp>
GitHub - s-expressionists/wscl: Sources of the "Well Specified Common Lisp" specification which is based on the final dr [...]
lagash has joined #commonlisp
<beach>
JeromeLon: If you want to contribute, you could write an "issue" about those cases.
seere has joined #commonlisp
<JeromeLon>
beach: oh, amazing, thanks
<beach>
Sure.
X-Scale has joined #commonlisp
<beach>
JeromeLon: While the standard is quite good, there are a certain number of bugs still, and lots of undefined or unspecified behavior, even when this is not really justified.
<ober>
cpli: between mmap and sb-posix it seems so
pranavats has left #commonlisp [Error from remote client]
X-Scale has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
kenran has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kami has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
skin has joined #commonlisp
waleee has joined #commonlisp
seere has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
tyson2 has joined #commonlisp
tyson2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<NotThatRPG>
JeromeLon: clisp enforces the loop clause order constraint that you cite. (it's one of the many reasons that clisp is a drag to use! ;-) )
bitspook has joined #commonlisp
artyn has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
sirufer has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
sm2n has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
srhm has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
milesrout_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jonlevin has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
whereiseveryone has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
\f has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jasom has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
jmbr has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
arpunk has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
payphone has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
mcoll has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ashpool has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Schnouki has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
zoglesby has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
alethkit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
mhcat has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
nytpu has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
theothornhill has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
chiheisen has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ardon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
shunter has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
sirufer has joined #commonlisp
ggb has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
delv has joined #commonlisp
jonlevin has joined #commonlisp
srhm has joined #commonlisp
milesrout_ has joined #commonlisp
arpunk has joined #commonlisp
ashpool has joined #commonlisp
Schnouki has joined #commonlisp
payphone has joined #commonlisp
ggb has joined #commonlisp
ardon has joined #commonlisp
mhcat has joined #commonlisp
zoglesby has joined #commonlisp
shunter has joined #commonlisp
jmbr has joined #commonlisp
alethkit has joined #commonlisp
whereiseveryone has joined #commonlisp
theothornhill has joined #commonlisp
chiheisen has joined #commonlisp
\f has joined #commonlisp
nytpu has joined #commonlisp
jasom has joined #commonlisp
mcoll has joined #commonlisp
sm2n has joined #commonlisp
artyn has joined #commonlisp
markasoftware has joined #commonlisp
gnoo has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jeosol has joined #commonlisp
<jackdaniel>
if a loop honors all requirements and then some more (i.e it allows less strict order), does that constitue a non-conformance (as opposted to an extension)?
<jeosol>
jackdaniel: does that friend happen to be yourself?
<jeosol>
good morning all!
cosimone has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
masinter has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
masinter has joined #commonlisp
JeromeLon has joined #commonlisp
tyson2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<yitzi>
jackdaniel: there aren't any exceptional situations listed for LOOP so out of order clauses are non conformant, but what to do about them seems unclear.
Oladon has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<jackdaniel>
I get that the program having them is not conformant
<jackdaniel>
but implementation handling it is not much different from defpackage :local-nicknames
<jackdaniel>
handling defpackage*
<yitzi>
Correct, I probably should have said that in the absence of "Exceptional Situations" implementations are free to ignore the out of order clauses.
<NotThatRPG>
yitzi: Is that true? Or should the implementation reject them as ill formed? I'm not sure that implementations are free to simply ignore code they consider ill-formed unless the spec explicitly defines it as an Exceptional Situation
<NotThatRPG>
(that said, I prefer the de facto standard behavior of LOOP )
ebrasca has joined #commonlisp
<ebrasca>
After udpating packages I can't open my webpages. I get "Not Found The requested URL / was not found on this server."
cosimone has joined #commonlisp
<ebrasca>
I also can't slime-connect to my server, I get "Can't locate module: SWANK-IO-PACKAGE::SWANK-QUICKLISP"
bitspook has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
gnoo has joined #commonlisp
dcb has joined #commonlisp
<yitzi>
NotThatRPG: What would "reject them as ill formed" mean? I haven't seen anywhere in the spec where it states what will happen. Granted sometimes this info is hiding somewhere.
<yitzi>
.....sometimes.
<NotThatRPG>
Well, if I stick random gunk into a DEFPACKAGE form, I expect the implementation to error, rather than saying "well, PART of this form is fine, so I'll go with that."
<Catie>
It catches spelling mistakes, if nothing else
<NotThatRPG>
Right, so I'm saying that you can assume that a CL implementation will reject ill-formed code without any explicit notification that it will do so.
<NotThatRPG>
Of course LOOP is interesting because I think it's extensible...
<yitzi>
The spec says there isn't a standardized mechanism to extend LOOP
gnoo has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<NotThatRPG>
yitzi: Right, but it doesn't say there is NO mechanism to extend LOOP...
<NotThatRPG>
I don't know off hand if the spec permits extensions. I assume so, but I haven't read carefully enough. I would have thought they would have said that LOOP *cannot* be extended -- there is NO mechanism for extension, instead of that there is no *standardized* (my emphasis) mechanism for extension
<NotThatRPG>
But I'm conjecturing wildly
bitspook has joined #commonlisp
<ebrasca>
I think the first problem may be related to hunchentoot
<jackdaniel>
conforming implementation n. an implementation, used to emphasize complete and correct adherance to all conformance criteria. A conforming implementation is capable of accepting a conforming program as input, preparing that program for execution, and executing the prepared program in accordance with this specification. An implementation which has been extended may still be a conforming
<jackdaniel>
implementation provided that no extension interferes with the correct function of any conforming program.
<jackdaniel>
if the standard does not specify, that "out of order clauses" should signal an error, then a conforming implementation may freely extend loop (or provide means of extending it)
bitspook has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<jackdaniel>
on contrary, if a conforming program does not work on the implementation (because some function has more required arguments than in the standard), then the implementation is not conforming
<jackdaniel>
NotThatRPG: ^
ebrasca has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<NotThatRPG>
@jackdaniel: I think the question here was more whether an implementation is permitted to "extend" by simply reading arbitrary extra stuff and ignoring it. So would it be ok for an implementation to accept (LOOP FOR X a Ham Sandwich from 0 below 10 ...) without having "ham sandwich" be defined as having some meaning. I'd say no.
ebrasca has joined #commonlisp
<jackdaniel>
well, it is me who whave asked the question so I have some hypothesis what it meant :)
Gleefre has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<NotThatRPG>
I guess it's a question between allowing someone to add a new construct, or use an existing construct differently
<NotThatRPG>
I was responding to yitzi who seemed to be claiming that it would be fine for a conforming implementation to simply throw extraneous stuff on the floor. I was claiming not
<jackdaniel>
I personally don't see a difference (given that we ignore for a second sanity) - if the implementation decides to assume that all programs are correct and segfault otherwise then it is still conforming
<jackdaniel>
or to filter out garbage from a program when present
<ebrasca>
After updating libraries I can't open my pages. I get "Not Found The requested URL / was not found on this server."
<jackdaniel>
(of course we need to keep in mind that signaling an error is often required by the standard)
<NotThatRPG>
@jackdaniel: Wow! That's not a conforming implementation I would want to use!
<jackdaniel>
me neither, that's why I've said that we may skip on "sanity" for a moment
<jackdaniel>
sane implementation will make sensible choices for parts that are not specified by the standard
Brucio-61 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<jackdaniel>
for example standard does /say/ what happens when clauses are out of order. one sane solution would be to try to deal with that (MIT), another is to signal an error. insane choice would be to iterate 4 times and print "HELLO"
<jackdaniel>
does _not_ /say/ * :)
scymtym has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<jackdaniel>
there's this program called "sl" that punishes user for mistyping "ls" - it animates an ascii locomotive for 5s
delv has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
<aeth>
it's not 5 seconds
<aeth>
it's end-to-end
<jackdaniel>
not that important to the point, don't you think?:) but you are most likely right
<aeth>
> sl 0.12s user 0.02s system 0% cpu 23.994 total
<aeth>
(small font, fullscreen terminal just now... can probably make the font smaller)
Gleefre has joined #commonlisp
<jackdaniel>
either way, my point is that it is one choice or the another, so saying that mit loop has a defect (compared to sicl loop) on that area is not "correct correct"
* jackdaniel
goes to sleep, good night \o
<aeth>
but, yeah, Lisp needs an `sl`
skin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
skin has joined #commonlisp
skin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<NotThatRPG>
Alas my mac does not seem to have sl...
rgherdt has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
lagash has joined #commonlisp
gnoo has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<_death>
"can't" is not a very useful description.. if you get 404 or 500 or something, that probably means hunchentoot does handle it, and you can also check its log output..
waleee has joined #commonlisp
Krystof has joined #commonlisp
pve has quit [Quit: leaving]
anticomputer has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<ebrasca>
_death: It was working before (ql:update-all-dists)
<_death>
ok.. but do you get an http response?
bitspook has joined #commonlisp
anticomputer has joined #commonlisp
<ebrasca>
_death: I get the "404 Not Found"
<ebrasca>
Instead of the expected page
<_death>
good, so do you also see it in the hunchentoot log
<ebrasca>
Where is the log?
<_death>
the repl buffer for me
<ebrasca>
I don't see any error in the repl
nitrowheels has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bitspook has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<pjb>
/br
<_death>
I'm talking about the log being printed to the *error-output* by default
<_death>
if it's the default hunchentoot error page, you should also see "Hunchentoot" mentioned in the browser
<_death>
well, that doesn't look like "just hunchentoot", but clog or something
LW has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.6]
jeosol has quit [Quit: Client closed]
<ebrasca>
I tryed hunchentood directly and I get same error with the "Your own webserver (the easy teen-age New York version)"
<_death>
and the log? also, make sure to avoid a cached result
waleee has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.8]
waleee has joined #commonlisp
jonatack1 has joined #commonlisp
jonatack1 has quit [Client Quit]
jon_atack has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
jeosol has joined #commonlisp
<ebrasca>
I am runnig it on my server , can't find it.
<yitzi>
NotThatRPG: i was not saying that a conforming implementation could "throw extraneous stuff on the floor." That is completely absurd. I said that the spec does not specify what an implementation should do if the LOOP clauses are out of order, therefore ignore the fact that they are out of order seems to be permitted. I did not say that LOOP could just ignore whole clauses.
specbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
minion has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
specbot has joined #commonlisp
<_death>
ebrasca: well, you can pass a pathname for :message-log-destination initarg when instantiating the acceptor.. then it should log to that file.. after that you should have a better idea if it's hunchentoot intercepting the request or not..
minion has joined #commonlisp
skin has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<_death>
(also :access-log-destination)
occ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
ioa has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
gnoo has joined #commonlisp
<ebrasca>
_death: I see 127.0.0.1 - [2023-03-24 00:16:00] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 404 290 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/111.0"
<ebrasca>
I don't see any output from :message-log-destination
<_death>
so now you can follow what hunchentoot:acceptor-dispatch-request is doing
<ebrasca>
What do you mean?
ioa has joined #commonlisp
<_death>
that's the generic function that will be called to handle a request.. it has methods specialized for ACCEPTOR and EASY-ACCEPTOR, at least.. you can look at the method definitions
<ebrasca>
I did it like this (hunchentoot:start (make-instance 'hunchentoot:easy-acceptor :port 4242 :message-log-destination "log-d" :access-log-destination "log-a"))
<ebrasca>
_death: It does , is the error in clog or is it in hunchentoot?
<_death>
well, probably not hunchentoot since you say it works..
<ebrasca>
Acording to the guide just need (hunchentoot:start (make-instance 'hunchentoot:easy-acceptor :port 4242)) to get output
<ebrasca>
put it does not work as id did before
azimut has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<_death>
if you mean the hunchentoot manual, then that section does not include a handler for the root uri.. so the error is expected.. I don't know what was your experience before.. you could go that path, diffing code or experimenting with the old versions and the new.. but maybe it's better to start with the current state and make sure there's a handle for that path
<_death>
*handler for that path
<_death>
the hunchentoot manual says you'll "see something".. which turns out to be the rendering of the error template.. so I understand how that can be confusing
<ebrasca>
It clearly says " That's it. Now you should be able to enter the address "http://127.0.0.1:4242/" in your browser and see something, albeit nothing very interesting for now. "
<ebrasca>
By default, Hunchentoot serves the files from the www/ directory in its source tree.
<_death>
right.. so now evaluate (hunchentoot:default-document-directory) and see whether that directory exists (it doesn't, here.. maybe it got removed at some point..)
<_death>
so I'd say it's a bug and you can open an issue
lagash has joined #commonlisp
azimut has joined #commonlisp
<hayley>
kami_: I see ( *[0-9a-zA-Z\\+/=]{4} *)+ works just fine (note spaces), creating a 26-state automaton. It generating too many states seems to depend on some non-determinism as you have s*[set including s]{4}.