00:19 (join) nilyaK1
00:22 (quit) nilyaK: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
00:46 (quit) dnolen: Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)
01:18 (join) anonus
01:36 (join) Demosthenes
01:37 (quit) jyc: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
01:37 (quit) Demosthenes: Client Quit
01:42 (join) Demosthenes
01:46 (quit) yoklov: Quit: computer sleeping
01:46 (join) jyc
02:02 (join) kvda
02:12 (join) hkBst
02:12 (quit) hkBst: Changing host
02:12 (join) hkBst
02:15 (quit) neilv: Quit: Leaving
02:26 (quit) mithos28: Quit: mithos28
02:45 (quit) jesyspa: Quit: leaving
02:56 (quit) jonrafkind: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
03:24 (join) bluezenix
03:39 (join) scvrory
03:45 (join) untrusted
03:58 (quit) untrusted: Remote host closed the connection
04:03 (quit) jyc: Read error: Connection reset by peer
04:07 (quit) nilyaK1: Quit: Leaving.
04:31 (join) antithesis
04:43 (join) bluezenix1
04:43 (quit) bluezenix: Read error: Connection reset by peer
05:01 (join) masm
05:17 (join) cdidd
05:26 (quit) Shvillr: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
05:26 (join) Shvillr
05:42 (join) bitonic
06:07 (join) noelw
06:13 (join) mye
06:14 (join) mye_
06:17 (quit) mye: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
06:33 (quit) bluezenix1: Quit: Leaving.
06:35 (join) bluezenix
06:40 (join) duomo
06:43 (quit) duomo: Remote host closed the connection
07:14 (quit) Shvillr: Read error: Connection reset by peer
07:16 (join) mye__
07:20 (quit) mye_: Ping timeout: 260 seconds
07:52 (quit) Quetzalcoatl_: Ping timeout: 250 seconds
07:59 (quit) Demosthenes: Quit: leaving
08:04 (quit) antithesis: Quit: yes leaving
08:05 (join) kanak
08:07 (quit) kanak: Remote host closed the connection
08:09 (quit) mye__: Quit: Leaving
08:10 (quit) cdidd: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
08:24 (join) cdidd
08:29 (join) duomo
08:42 (quit) duomo: Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com
08:45 (quit) kvda: Quit: x__x
08:46 (join) zyoung
09:01 (join) jonathansizz
09:01 (join) getpwnam
09:02 (join) hash_table
09:09 (join) jeapostrophe
09:17 (join) kanak
09:35 (quit) jeapostrophe: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
09:44 (join) dnolen
09:47 (join) jesyspa
09:53 (join) mceier
09:57 (quit) jrslepak: Quit: This computer has gone to sleep
10:26 (join) gciolli
10:28 (join) anRch
10:36 (quit) gciolli: Quit: Leaving.
10:41 (join) mithos28
10:43 (join) untrusted
11:02 (quit) dnolen: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
11:04 (join) jao
11:04 (quit) jao: Changing host
11:04 (join) jao
11:06 (join) antithesis
11:06 (nick) emma -> em
11:06 (join) ambrosebs
11:07 (join) morthwylion
11:07 (quit) morthwylion: Client Quit
11:21 (join) plobzik
11:24 (quit) plobzik: Read error: Connection reset by peer
11:35 (quit) hkBst: Quit: Konversation terminated!
11:37 (quit) anRch: Quit: anRch
11:45 (join) osa1
11:46 (part) osa1
11:49 (quit) bluezenix: Quit: Leaving.
11:51 (quit) getpwnam: Read error: Connection reset by peer
11:51 (quit) hash_table: Read error: Connection reset by peer
11:51 (quit) jonathansizz: Quit: bye
11:54 (quit) untrusted: Remote host closed the connection
11:56 (join) getpwnam
11:57 (join) hash_table
11:59 (join) yoklov
12:07 (join) anRch
12:13 (quit) noelw: Quit: noelw
12:13 (quit) yoklov: Quit: bye!
12:19 (join) jonrafkind
12:24 (quit) bitonic: Quit: WeeChat 0.3.7
12:31 (quit) anRch: Read error: Connection reset by peer
12:32 (join) stis
12:32 (join) anRch
12:35 (join) jonathansizz
12:41 (quit) anRch: Quit: anRch
12:45 (quit) ambrosebs: Ping timeout: 248 seconds
12:55 (join) aalix
13:11 (join) mye
13:18 (join) bluezenix
13:33 shawnps: is there a way i can use RackUnit to assert that, after calling a given function, another function was called with certain arguments?
13:33 shawnps: i only see stuff like, asserting that the function returns a specific number or stuff like that
13:39 (quit) bluezenix: Quit: Leaving.
13:44 (quit) scvrory: Quit: leaving
13:59 (join) anRch
14:07 asumu: shawnps: I don't think Rackunit can do that. In general, that doesn't sound like a very good unit test.
14:07 asumu: Since it depends on your implementation and not the interface.
14:08 Cryovat: https://gist.github.com/0327cc8a55c4d2f3030b
14:08 Shambles_: I tried the first example on this page: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/prompt.html  It doesn't return or otherwise display 0 as shown.
14:08 Cryovat: Am I doing something obviously wrong in that code?
14:08 shawnps: the thing is, the code i want to test makes GET, POST, PUT, DELETE requests
14:13 (quit) getpwnam: Ping timeout: 248 seconds
14:13 (quit) jonathansizz: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
14:13 Shambles_: The second example works as advertised, but I'm not sure I understand why.  The debugger shows it 'jumps' to the default-continuation-prompt-tag before evaluating the lambda with all those + 1's, then runs the 'escape' code as expected, then jumps back to the same default-continuation-prompt-tag, and returns the value.
14:13 (quit) hash_table: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
14:14 Shambles_: I'm not sure why the first jump happens at all, or why the second one doesn't jump to the inner default-continuation-prompt-tag.
14:24 (quit) jesyspa: Quit: leaving
14:25 (join) snearch
14:27 (join) jesyspa
14:29 asumu: Cryovat: I think that may be a bug, let me check.
14:29 shawnps: I get the same problem with Cryovat's code
14:30 asumu: Shambles_: I tried that example (the one with escape right?) and it produced 0.
14:30 Shambles_: asumu: I've tried it several times, it produces nothing at all for me.  I'm on Windows XP and running 5.2.1 at the moment.
14:31 Cryovat: asumu: It might very well be me missing something though
14:31 Shambles_: Another, more interesting thing, is if I paste the whole thing (removing the output and the ">" parts) into the code area the first example (the one intended to cause 0 to be returned) prevents the second from evaluating at all.
14:31 Cryovat: The Typed Racket documentation on the for/ forms is... brief
14:32 asumu: rudybot: (define (escape v)
14:32 asumu: (abort-current-continuation
14:32 asumu: (default-continuation-prompt-tag)
14:32 rudybot: asumu: I think compile-mode is to fix to be able to cope with escape sequences.
14:32 asumu: Ugh.
14:32 asumu: rudybot: (define (escape v) (abort-current-continuation))
14:32 rudybot: asumu: your sandbox is ready
14:32 rudybot: asumu: Done.
14:32 asumu: rudybot: (+ 1 (+ 1 (escape 0))
14:32 rudybot: asumu: GNU in general is still really bad about spaces; it's more or less impossible to escape spaces properly in a Makefile, and I've tried, oh my god have I tried, I tried every single time.
14:32 asumu: rudybot: (+ 1 (+ 1 (escape 0)))
14:32 rudybot: asumu: error: abort-current-continuation: expects at least 1 argument, given 0
14:33 asumu: rudybot: (define (escape v) (abort-current-continuation (lambda () v)))
14:33 rudybot: asumu: Done.
14:33 asumu: rudybot: (+ 1 (+ 1 (escape 0)))
14:33 rudybot: asumu: error: abort-current-continuation: expects argument of type <continuation-prompt-tag>; given: #<procedure>
14:33 asumu: rudybot: (define (escape v) (abort-current-continuation (default-continuation-prompt-tag) (lambda () v)))
14:33 rudybot: asumu: Done.
14:33 asumu: rudybot: (+ 1 (+ 1 (escape 0)))
14:33 rudybot: asumu: ; Value: 0
14:33 (join) bluezenix
14:34 asumu: Shambles_: Did you just run the example unmodified?
14:34 asumu: Or maybe in DrRacket? I didn't try it there.
14:35 asumu: Oh... it doesn't do the same thing in DrRacket.
14:35 Shambles_: asumu: I pasted it in the upper window in DrRacket.  I wanted to watch it in the debugger, since I didn't understand how the control flow was supposed to work (and still don't).
14:35 Shambles_: And I just restarted it, cut/pasted it, edited out the stuff not meant to run, and it does the same thing, so I don't think I messed up.
14:36 Shambles_: The second example works as it's supposed to, as far as I can tell, I just don't understand why it behaves as it does.  The first one definitely does not work as advertised.
14:38 asumu: Shambles_: It has something to do with the prompt that DrRacket itself installs in the REPL.
14:38 asumu: In the second example, the extra prompt catches the abort so it's ok.
14:38 Shambles_: asumu: Does this mean I found a bug, or is it not supposed to work in DrRacket?  Probably aught to be a note if it's not supposed to work there.
14:40 asumu: Could be a bug. Either way, you should submit a bug report since either DrRacket or the docs should be fixed.
14:40 (quit) snearch: Quit: Verlassend
14:41 asumu: shawnps: can you test your code by sending the requests on a dummy port?
14:41 Shambles_: asumu: How would I go about doing that?
14:43 Shambles_: I think I found the link.  Here? http://bugs.racket-lang.org/
14:46 asumu: Shambles_: Yep, that's it. Sorry, my web browser was down so I didn't have the link handy.
14:46 asumu: Cryovat: I think you've found a bug. #hash() has the wrong type basically.
14:47 asumu: In the mean-time, you should be able to write a version of get-dict directly with recursion using make-hash, hash-set, etc.
14:47 Cryovat: Ah, ok
14:47 Cryovat: Thanks :)
14:47 asumu: (we'll try to fix the bug)
14:48 Shambles_: asumu: That's okay.  Since I'm sort of 'stuck' here, could you help explain that part of the documentation to me?  I understand exceptions just fine.  I understand the concept of a continuation, but haven't actually used them much.  I've tried watching both examples in the debugger.  Here goes my interpretation of the first one.
14:49 (join) snearch
14:50 Shambles_: asumu: The function "escape" is defined.  Then the outermost (+ 1 ... starts being applied.  The nested (+ 1 s are arguments so it starts trying to apply those.  Eventually it hits "escape".  The function's code is evaluated as expected.  It passes over abort-current-continuation, then default-continuation-prompt-tag, and then stops.  That's what seems to happen in the debugger.
14:52 Shambles_: asumu: What I find confusing in all this is I would expect the 'abort' to cause unwinding to start as soon as it was struck, instead of it being passed over.  Maybe this has something to do with 'applying' it, so it has to evaluate the default-continuation-prompt-tag first?).  Either way I wouldn't ever expect the lambda to be evaluated, and seems it's not.  Can you explain what's supposed to happen and why?
14:52 asumu: Shambles_: abort-current-continuation will jump to the nearest continuation prompt with the appropriate tag (here the default one).
14:52 asumu: (skipping over all the code in between)
14:53 Shambles_: asumu: How does it know where to jump to?  Doesn't the tag have to be set already, by having been struck before the abort?
14:53 asumu: The REPL sets it at the "prompt" (in the command-line sense).
14:54 asumu: If you ran it with a tag you make up, then it will tell you it couldn't find a prompt to jump to.
14:54 asumu: i.e., try replacing (default-continuation-prompt-tag) with (make-continuation-prompt-tag).
14:54 asumu: The jump will fail.
14:54 Shambles_: asumu: Where would "a tag you make up" go?
14:55 Shambles_: Oh, I see.
14:55 Shambles_: Need to use make-continuation-prompt-tag.
14:56 Shambles_: asumu: Am I right that the reason it even tries to do anything after hitting abort-current-continuation is because it still needs to 'apply' that, which causes it to evaluate the default-continuation-prompt-tag inside it?
14:58 (quit) anRch: Quit: anRch
15:00 asumu: Shambles_: Yeah, it's a function so its arguments will be evaluated first.
15:06 Shambles_: asumu: I guess hitting the default-continuation-prompt-tag inside it doesn't cause it to immediately start unwinding.  That's why the lambda was supposed to be evaluated, and produce the 0?
15:13 (join) getpwnam
15:13 (join) jonathansizz
15:14 (join) Shvillr
15:14 (join) hash_table
15:16 (quit) masm: Read error: Operation timed out
15:16 (join) masm
15:20 asumu: Shambles_: Right, the prompt tag just evaluates to a value.
15:21 jonrafkind: oh struct accessors.. how i loathe thee
15:21 Shambles_: asumu: Okay, now to the concept...  Seems to me like the tag for 'where to restore to' was set inside the function that's supposed to start unwinding when it's done, so it should end up in a infinitely loop, going to that state, and trying to unwind, and then going to that state...  Why is that not what's expected to happen?
15:23 asumu: Because the prompt tag is evaluated before the function is actually called. When abort is called, it then proceeds to jump to the nearest prompt with the tag.
15:23 asumu: When the abort is called, it discards the entire continuation up to the prompt.
15:24 asumu: So it can't actually go back.
15:24 asumu: Now, if you had captured a continuation instead of aborting, you could go back.
15:27 Shambles_: Hmm.  So the abort sets the tag inside, and all the stuff inside is supposed to finish, and then the abort happens, and it starts unwinding, but basically there's not anything to unwind now (there weren't any stack frames between the tag and the abort)...  So why doesn't it end up trying to add up all those + 1's?
15:28 asumu: In the first example? In that example, it aborts all the way to the REPL prompt so the +1s are all discarded.
15:28 asumu: In the 2nd example, there is only one +1 outside of the prompt, which does happen.
15:28 asumu: But the inner +1s are all obliterated by the abort.
15:30 Shambles_: I'm just trying to understand what the first is supposed to do.  The second is more confusing.
15:30 asumu: Oh, well that jumps to the prompt/top-level so it has nothing left to do.
15:30 asumu: So it's just 0.
15:31 Shambles_: In terms of exception handlers, what I would expect to happen, I guess, is the handler 'inside' the part throwing the exception to not do anything useful, since it's not outside the scope of the throwing part, and then it to unwind all the way back to the start and die with a error.  Is that what actually happens?
15:31 Shambles_: Minus the error part.
15:32 asumu: It unwinds all the way back to the prompt (if you want to think of that as "the start") and returns a value. So yeah, in a way this is like "raise" an exception.
15:32 asumu: With a handler that does nothing.
15:32 asumu: (just returns the value)
15:33 Shambles_: So that default-continuation-prompt-tag inside the abort thing is just a red herring.  It's not doing anything?
15:33 asumu: Yes. In fact, I'm puzzled why it requires the prompt tag argument rather than have it be an optional arg.
15:33 asumu: (and default to the default tag)
15:34 Shambles_: Okay, cool, I understand that part.
15:34 asumu: In general, the tag is useful.
15:34 Shambles_: Now the second one has me extremely confused.
15:34 asumu: Since it lets you use several "kinds" of control that don't interfere with each other.
15:34 asumu: (irrelevant in this example)
15:35 Shambles_: The part that bothers me is that it goes from call-with-continuations-prompt to default-continuation-prompt-tag immediately.  It doesn't even try to use the lambda.  That's not the only thing, but it's the most disturbing thing.  Why is it the evaluation isn't happening the way it usually does?
15:36 asumu: The lambda is just an argument. It can use it or not.
15:37 asumu: (though call-with-continuation-prompt does use it)
15:44 Shambles_: So it's not tried to evaluate that yet, which is why it skips to the second part?
15:44 asumu: Yes.
15:45 asumu: You can think of evaluating a lambda as really just allocating it on the heap or whatever.
15:49 Shambles_: Okay, so like the first time, when it evaluates escape, the inner default-continuation-prompt-tag doesn't do anything.  This results in it going back to the one that does 'do something', the one we just set, which ends the evaluation of call-with-continuation-prompt (since it skips to the end, avoiding the lambda), and that just leaves you with (+ 1) which is where the 1 comes from in output?
15:50 Shambles_: The outermost + 1
15:53 asumu: Cryovat: made some progress on fixing that bug, but your example still doesn't run.
15:53 asumu: Can you submit a but report?
15:53 Cryovat: Sure
15:53 (join) RacketCommitBot
15:53 RacketCommitBot: [racket] plt pushed 1 new commit to master: http://git.io/JDPhHg
15:53 RacketCommitBot: [racket/master] TR: Fix type-checking of hash literals. - Asumu Takikawa
15:53 (part) RacketCommitBot
15:54 asumu: s/but/bug/
15:55 asumu: Shambles_: it actually runs the lambda passed to it, which then does the abort.
15:55 asumu: It aborts to the prompt, providing 0 to the context (+ 1 []).
15:56 Shambles_: I see what you mean, and wasn't thinking clearly. If it hadn't you wouldn't have hit the escape.  But the rest of what I said was right, right?
15:59 Cryovat: asumu: Done
16:00 asumu: Cryovat: thanks.
16:00 Cryovat: 12787 for reference
16:00 asumu: Shambles_: I think so, yeah.
16:01 Cryovat: Without stepping too hard on your toes, the official bug tracker isn't the newest thing I've seen around the web :|
16:03 Shambles_: asumu: Okay.  Thanks for helping me wade through all that.
16:05 asumu: Cryovat: We're in the process of migrating to github.
16:05 (quit) bluezenix: Quit: Leaving.
16:05 Cryovat: Ah, that's good
16:05 asumu: Once the entire bug database is migrated there, the old interface will be deprecated.
16:17 (quit) dented42: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
16:18 (join) bluezenix
16:23 (join) mye_
16:27 (quit) mye: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
16:37 (join) jeapostrophe
16:37 (quit) jeapostrophe: Changing host
16:37 (join) jeapostrophe
16:42 (join) djcb
16:45 (join) ambrosebs
16:54 (quit) antithesis: Quit: yes leaving
16:58 (quit) jesyspa: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
16:59 (join) jesyspa
17:03 (join) dented42
17:15 (quit) dented42: Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.
17:16 (part) stis
17:16 (quit) bluezenix: Quit: Leaving.
17:26 (join) dented42
17:27 (quit) cdidd: Remote host closed the connection
17:31 (quit) jesyspa: Ping timeout: 248 seconds
17:32 (join) jesyspa
17:34 asumu: Shambles_: I figured out why DrRacket has different prompt behavior. Going to discuss it on racket-dev and we'll see what happens.
17:34 Shambles_: asumu: I'm glad you figured it out.
17:51 (part) ambrosebs
17:54 (join) mye__
17:57 (quit) mye_: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
17:58 (quit) jonrafkind: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
18:12 (join) jonrafkind
18:22 (join) jyc
18:23 (quit) zyoung: Read error: Operation timed out
19:01 (join) zyoung
19:19 (quit) jeapostrophe: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
19:21 (quit) snearch: Quit: Verlassend
19:33 (join) DanBurton
19:34 DanBurton: so I'm trying to write a macro that can be used inside of type declarations in Typed Racket
19:34 DanBurton: is that possible?
19:34 (quit) jonrafkind: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
19:35 (quit) mceier: Quit: leaving
19:41 (quit) ivan`: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
19:42 (quit) elliottcable: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
19:43 (quit) tauntaun: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
19:43 (quit) shawnps: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
19:45 (quit) rapacity: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
19:50 (join) dnolen
19:52 (join) nilyaK
20:07 (join) ivan`
20:23 (join) jrslepak
20:30 (quit) nilyaK: Quit: Leaving.
20:34 (join) kvda
20:35 (quit) masm: Quit: Leaving.
20:39 (join) shawnps
20:39 (join) tauntaun
20:39 (nick) tauntaun -> Guest7514
20:43 (quit) zyoung: Remote host closed the connection
20:45 (join) tauntaun_
20:47 (quit) dented42: Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.
20:48 (quit) kvda: Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.
20:49 (join) kvda
20:50 (quit) tauntaun_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
20:51 (join) tauntaun_
20:51 (quit) aalix: Ping timeout: 260 seconds
20:56 (quit) tauntaun_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
20:58 (join) tauntaun_
21:02 (quit) tauntaun_: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
21:03 (join) tauntaun_
21:04 (quit) sid0: Ping timeout: 246 seconds
21:11 (join) sid0
21:13 (quit) tauntaun_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
21:19 (join) tauntaun_
21:23 (quit) DanBurton: Quit: leaving
21:30 (quit) tauntaun_: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
21:30 (join) tauntaun_
21:35 (quit) tauntaun_: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
21:41 (join) tauntaun_
21:52 (join) rapacity
22:13 (join) elliottcable
22:40 (join) jonrafkind
23:13 (quit) cky: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
23:13 (quit) karswell: Remote host closed the connection
23:18 (quit) dnolen: Ping timeout: 244 seconds
23:18 (join) karswell
23:49 (join) dented42
23:57 (quit) ivan\: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
23:59 (join) ambrosebs