elliottcable changed the topic of #Paws.Nucleus to: http://Paws.mu — coming soon™ ... or not.
whitequark has joined #Paws.Nucleus
Rusky has joined #Paws.Nucleus
alexgordon has joined #Paws.Nucleus
<alexgordon>
hi ELLIOTTCABLE
glowcoil has joined #Paws.Nucleus
<alexgordon>
hi glowcoil
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
give me a sec, guys
<glowcoil>
hi
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
cleaning up my stupid interface to deal with more than one channel.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
by which I mean, leaving two dozen channels.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
AAAAAAAAAANYWAY
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: so what's the status of everything
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: whitequark took the spec and ran with it, and then wrote a super-non-conformant-weird-ass implementation of Paws, and is now bringing some of his magical wisdom back for us dullards. :P
<alexgordon>
cool
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: spec, haven't touched, don't feel like I need to.
<alexgordon>
do you still need me?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
if you read it, the only thing missing is locals. just, ask me about that when you need to. lol.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yes!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark is the polar opposite of you. He can give me nothing that you can give me, but neither can you give me what he's been giving me.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so.
<alexgordon>
LOL
<alexgordon>
yeah probably
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Rusky, whitequark: as I was saying,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
what whitequark's suggested native “mailboxing” routine does, is act as a `yield` keyword would.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
specifically, an anonymous one, for which you can't access the yield-points *except for the next one*. Which, I'm sure, makes sense.
<alexgordon>
this calls for late-night chocolate
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
late night? what time is it, there?
<alexgordon>
about quarter to midnight
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'm side-tracked. Lost the point.
<glowcoil>
par for the course today it seems
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: comment on my proposed design with pends and mailboxes
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah, right!? lol.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
dying
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
mailboxes are largely irrelevant. Your implementation could be created libside, I believe.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pends, holes, whatever the case … I want to think on it.
<alexgordon>
lol holes
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Whatever it is, that change isn't happening *right now*. Too sweeping. (I also want to investigate solutions using the *current* architecture; I'm still vaguely seeing a solution involving responsibility / locks. need to think about it.)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I actually *really like* holes. or pends, or whatever.
<alexgordon>
I really like holes too, elliott
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
still convinced they're the same thing, with the only difference being whether we provide some sort of “indiscriminate-unstage” primitive, mailbox(), unstage(), wtfever.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but, again, I need to think about it a lot. It's the most fundamental change Paws will have ever undergone, because it'll be the first time Executions were changed (or, in fact, basically disposed of), and that makes me very uncomfortable.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Change can be good, so, yeah. We'll see.
<whitequark>
well so
<whitequark>
I'm going to continue developing this weird version of Paws
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: so I will be very interested in discussing how would you do things, *if* holes.
* ELLIOTTCABLE
nods
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
same thing I said to micah, though:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
if you're going to be doing things *that* substantially different, (like, not just deciding that your index-taking natives are going to need a numeric type, but actually changing the model of execution), then don't call it Paws.
<whitequark>
wqPaws?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
lolol
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Wick
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
is how I pronounce that. so, that's my suggestion :D
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: we all know about you and holes >,<
<whitequark>
no, I just didn't get what you're saying
<whitequark>
I'm 100% fine not ever dealing with a naming issue
<whitequark>
ok, Wick it is
<alexgordon>
paws, hands, wick?
<alexgordon>
man paws ecosystem is more fragmented than android
<Rusky>
now we need posp
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: ok so, let's talk business
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yiss?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I'm in the middle of a making a website project right now, but it's not really urgent
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yiss.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I can resurrect my paws implementation and try to implement it, if you're you'll pay me or give me equivalent sexual favours
<whitequark>
lol
* ELLIOTTCABLE
laughs
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
equivalent sexual favours, I can do.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
hiring you to work on Paws, would be a different thing. And later.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I didn't even know Paws was -happening- again *wails*
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
re: fragmentation, yes. I know. :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
people are impatient for me to make big decisions about changes, or to make it the way they think it should be; and I'm dead-set on having something *coherent* instead of something theoretically perfect.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: the spec *should* be all you need to make it run code, I hope.
<whitequark>
hahahaha
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I really don't want to have to revisit it and re-write it *right now*, but maybe I need to. Ugh.
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I'm probably going to write the spec myself at some point
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: well it's just I'm not really paying full attention while all this new stuff is going on because I'm busy with this django project
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yes, I know
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so what're you building?
<whitequark>
simply because I had to read a lot of specs for other langs, I kinda have it burned into my mind
<whitequark>
they're all similar, and all suit a very specific and same purpose for implementer.
<whitequark>
or maybe I'll teach you to write them properl