00:01 <afidegnum> ok

00:54 <afidegnum> is there a way to mix racket and emacs lisp code?

01:14 <erkin> afidegnum: How do you mean?

01:16 <samth> afidegnum: for vector graphics, it sort of depends what you mean, but the `pict` library is vector graphics, as is the lower-level `racket/draw` library

01:19 <afidegnum> erkin: while writing a racket, i want to triggers some functionalities belonging to emacs via elisp, i.e splitting a buffer into to or launching an elisp command.

01:20 <afidegnum> i'm reading about `pict` now, nice and interesting :)

01:20 <erkin> I don't see where Racket code comes into play there. Why not just use Emacs Lisp?

01:21 <afidegnum> not all functionalities are available in emacs lisp, that's why i'm using racket

01:22 <erkin> Racket is not a suitable language for extending Emacs. You can use Common Lisp functionality with the `cl' package.

01:23 <grym> (called cl-lib, now)

01:23 <erkin> Ah, good to know.

01:23 <grym> (you'll get gently scolded as of 27.x as i have discovered just the other day)

01:26 <afidegnum> Common lisp also had few challenges

05:02 <winny> it seems struct names ought to be namespaced or have a naming convention to differentiate them from instances of the struct that might use the same name (since in both cases they are usually a noun -- e.g. (struct person (first-name last-name)) -> you might pass it into a function as "person" (lambda (person) #| do something with person |# ). The issue with rebinding "person" (or whatever the name

05:02 <winny> of the struct might be) is (match-define (struct person (first-name last-name)) person) won't do what you expect. Instead you'll get an error on macro expansion like: struct*: not a structure definition

05:03 <winny> I usually do cute names like "the-person" or "person1" but i feel like that steals a lot of attention from the reader, why the funny name, they might be thinking