samth changed the topic of #racket to: Racket v7.7 has been released: https://blog.racket-lang.org/2020/05/racket-v7-7.html -- Racket -- https://racket-lang.org -- https://pkgs.racket-lang.org -- Paste at http://pasterack.org
efm has joined #racket
TestNasm has joined #racket
TCZ has joined #racket
libertyprime has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
TCZ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
orivej_ has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
krjst has quit [Quit: bye]
krjst has joined #racket
vraid has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
ArthurStrong has quit [Quit: leaving]
<Tolstoy> Ok, I'm going to see if deleting DrRacket.app and re-installing will solve that extra-tab-bar problem.
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
<Tolstoy> Hm. That didn't work. There's a preference file somewhere I can't find.
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<Tolstoy> Hm. Installed DrRacket on a fresh machine, and the macos supplied tab bar is not there, nor is the menu item I'd selected earlier (on the affected machine).
<Tolstoy> On the new machine, an "Enter Full Screen" item existed. When I selected that, I got full screen, and the View menu had options for showing/hiding the tab bar. After quitting and restarting the app, the "full screen" option is gone forever.
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
sagax has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
<Tolstoy> I can see this in the saved state plist: "NSWindowTabbingShoudShowTabBarKey-RacketWindow-RacketWindow-(null)-VT-FS". The word "Should" is misspelled.
Tolstoy has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
Tolstoy has joined #racket
_whitelogger has joined #racket
endformationage has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.7.1]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
_whitelogger has joined #racket
<Tolstoy> Is there a way to sleep for less than one second?
dddddd has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
orivej has joined #racket
simendsjo has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
_whitelogger has joined #racket
simendsjo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
simendsjo has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
simendsjo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rgherdt has joined #racket
_whitelogger has joined #racket
mjanssen has joined #racket
fanta1 has joined #racket
libertyprime has joined #racket
orivej has joined #racket
bocaneri has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
bocaneri has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
rgherdt has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rgherdt has joined #racket
<jmiven> Tolstoy: (sleep 0.1) should work
orivej has joined #racket
TCZ has joined #racket
TCZ2 has joined #racket
TCZ2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
TCZ has quit [Client Quit]
TCZ has joined #racket
dddddd has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
catonano has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
TCZ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
_whitelogger has joined #racket
TCZ has joined #racket
Lowl3v3l has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Lowl3v3l has joined #racket
Lowl3v3l has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
libertyprime has quit [Quit: leaving]
orivej has joined #racket
Lowl3v3l has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
<dzoe> Well... sleep guarantees that it will pause current execution for at least given amount of time in (possibly fractional part of) seconds.
<dzoe> If you want to use it for some precise timing, it becomes quickly tricky.
<dzoe> And for GUI applications I definitely recommend using timer% class - https://docs.racket-lang.org/gui/timer_.html
efm has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
TCZ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
acarrico has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
dddddd has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
nikita` has joined #racket
nebunez has joined #racket
orivej_ has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
<nisstyre> there is a function called nanosleep in C
<nisstyre> not sure if racket exposes it anywhere
<nisstyre> I guess racket's sleep is an abstraction over sleep/usleep/nanosleep
orivej_ has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<nisstyre> probably because windows doesn't have a good way of doing this
<nisstyre> as compared to posix
orivej_ has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
acarrico has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<dzoe> Actually it is a scheduler thing as there might be more racket threads running and/or some other work might need to be done.
orivej has joined #racket
TestNasm has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
acarrico has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
rgherdt has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
rgherdt has joined #racket
acarrico has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
dddddd has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #racket
<Tolstoy> jmiven: thanks, dzoe ... I just want something approximate (delay between attempts to make a web request).
zv has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<Tolstoy> Hm. My scraper app in Racket uses about 120 MB of memory, while the chicken scheme one is about 15MB. Is that expected?
<samth> Tolstoy: 120 MB for a web scraper seems a little high but not shocking to me
<Tolstoy> I'm using #lang racket/base. The binary is 60MB, fwiw. (Chicken's is 12MB). Hm.
<samth> For me, when I start racket with just `racket/base`, it uses about 9.5 MB. After loading `racket` and `net/url` it uses 36 MB.
<samth> Of course, that isn't doing anything, so that's a lower bound.
rgherdt has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
TCZ has joined #racket
rgherdt has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej_ has joined #racket
fanta1 has quit [Quit: fanta1]
orivej_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
selimcan has joined #racket
orivej has joined #racket
<dzoe> There is only one question left... How the heck did I end up patching CS register allocation code on saturday night?
<dzoe> My current impression is that all the platforms' configurations specify only 2 extra FP registers and the register allocator expects only a few FP registers.
<dzoe> Which means that just throwing more fp registers into the register allocator does not work as one would naively expect.
<dzoe> However, if I test similar operations with fixnums, the CS register allocator does a great job (although a final pass filter could easily be applied to the generated machine code as there are some redundancies left anyway).
gabot has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
gabot has joined #racket
SenasOzys has joined #racket
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket
SenasOzys has quit [Client Quit]
SenasOzys has joined #racket
SenasOzys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
SenasOzys has joined #racket
SenasOzys has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
selimcan has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
badkins has joined #racket
TCZ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
badkins has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
badkins has joined #racket
badkins has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rgherdt has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
badkins has joined #racket
ArthurStrong has joined #racket
casaca has quit [Excess Flood]
casaca has joined #racket
nikita` has quit [Quit: leaving]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
orivej has joined #racket