2003-07-01.txt:11:16:20: <Taaus> This programming contest is being conducted by ICFP, which implies a desire to promote functional languages. However, rather than debate the definition of a "functional programming language," we will allow submitted programs to be written in any language whatsoever. Mixing languages is entirely acceptable; perhaps you will write in O'Caml and Haskell, with a Tcl script to do the gluing.
2003-07-28.txt:02:15:18: <andreou> For my personal history, over the years I've competed in and taught nightclub type dancing, surfed professionally and owned a surfboard company, competed in and coached both wrestling and tennis, become a real rocket scientist and a computer nerd, gotten five college degrees, acquired a teaching credential, hob-nobbed with many famous people, written several books (most are technical but one is on surfing and one is on Sombo - a form of martial arts), be
2005-06-06.txt:15:31:21: <pgimeno> it comes with a tcl/tk editor
2005-08-28.txt:21:41:49: <calamari> then I was totally outclassed by a javascript unix shell featured on /. :)
2006-03-26.txt:20:44:41: <ihope> http://dontclick.it/
2006-05-26.txt:06:33:15: <rabidpoobear> i know how to define classes... i meant what is the stuff in parenthesis doing? I always do "class TestClass:" and that's it
2006-06-07.txt:21:22:23: <sedimin> exatcly
2006-07-24.txt:17:41:21: <pikhq> Is Tcl sufficiently esoteric?
2006-07-24.txt:17:45:08: * pikhq is a Tcl fan. . .
2006-07-24.txt:17:45:13: <pikhq> So, I'm compiling into Tcl.
2006-07-24.txt:18:27:19: <pikhq> Is it possible to do getchar in Tcl?
2006-07-25.txt:22:07:49: <pikhq> Or is it Lisp in Tcl-expressions?
2006-07-28.txt:16:58:07: <pikhq> I'm a Tcler when being serious.
2006-07-28.txt:17:01:30: * pikhq ain't happy until it's Tcl syntax or sexps.
2006-07-28.txt:17:02:42: <nooga> Tcl sux
2006-07-28.txt:17:03:06: <Razor-X> I've never played with Tcl.
2006-07-28.txt:17:04:22: <pikhq> nooga: {[Tcl] != $sucks}
2006-08-01.txt:16:53:01: * pikhq hugs Tcl
2006-08-02.txt:22:45:38: <pikhq> GregorR-W: It's only 99 calls. Tcl takes quite a bit more to overflow.
2006-08-02.txt:22:47:35: <pikhq> Hell, maybe Tcl does that.
2006-08-02.txt:22:51:15: <pikhq> No, Tcl doesn't. :/
2006-08-02.txt:23:06:28: <pikhq> Mmm. Found a Tcl package which allows for, among other things, tail call optimisation.
2006-08-04.txt:17:21:58: <pikhq> You could make a comment *be* a string in Tcl. . .
2006-08-04.txt:20:42:06: <ivan`> Tcl/Tk is esoteric already, right?
2006-08-04.txt:20:53:24: <RodgerTheGreat> I guess that if PostScript is an esolang, then Tcl is as well.
2006-08-05.txt:17:17:51: * pikhq codes in Tcl, not C, anyways. ;)
2006-08-07.txt:14:33:48: <pikhq> I read Tcl in roughly the same way it's parsed by tclsh.
2006-08-10.txt:03:44:44: <pikhq> I'm a Tcler.
2006-08-10.txt:03:46:47: <pikhq> My coding in OSX has been in Tcl.
2006-08-10.txt:03:49:37: * pikhq counts things like "Python" and "Tcl" to be decent libraries :p
2006-08-10.txt:03:50:04: <pikhq> Hmm. You know, I should play around with the tclwm package. . .
2006-08-10.txt:03:54:56: <pikhq> http://www.tcl.tk/cgi-bin/tct/tip/47.html
2006-08-11.txt:02:44:48: <pikhq> Tcl's easy on the fingers.
2006-08-11.txt:03:27:38: <pikhq> And newlines are *effectively* moot in Tcl, as well (although whitespace is necessary).
2006-08-16.txt:00:31:34: <pikhq> I prefer Tcl's braces, because it makes it easy to see how it will be parsed. . .
2006-08-16.txt:00:48:53: <pikhq> There are no strings in Tcl. It's all a bunch of lists.
2006-08-21.txt:01:26:05: <pikhq> Razor-X: I'm jumping from Tcl, a high-level language which is much, much closer to Lisp than C, to C. . .
2006-08-21.txt:01:29:03: <pikhq> The whole point of this excercise is learning C; if I use Tcl or Lisp, then I don't do what I set out to do.
2006-08-22.txt:02:23:45: <pikhq> Like I said, I'm a Tcler.
2006-08-22.txt:03:30:04: <pikhq> CakeProphet: Tcl, my language of choice, tastes best with some C spicing blended in. . .
2006-08-22.txt:03:30:50: <pikhq> C, Tcl, and. . . Yeah.
2006-08-22.txt:03:45:07: <pikhq> puts [lappend "Tcl " "is " "better."]
2006-08-22.txt:03:46:01: <CakeProphet> for x in ["Lol", "tcl", "sucks"]: print x
2006-08-22.txt:22:56:34: <pikhq> Lists are easy to handle in Tcl; it's the only datatype. ;)
2006-08-22.txt:23:03:26: <pikhq> In Tcl, everything is a list. .
2006-08-22.txt:23:03:37: * pikhq is a Tcler; trust me
2006-08-22.txt:23:48:53: * pikhq ends up using Tcl for a lot of the stuff you can do in functional languages (Tcl is by no means a pure functional language; it's more of a bastardisation between an imperative language and a functional one). . .
2006-08-27.txt:20:24:06: <pikhq> Meh. I'll write the DBF compiler in Tcl, since I'm really good at it. . .
2006-08-27.txt:22:27:23: <pikhq> I'll probably write it as a C/Tcl hybrid. . .
2006-08-29.txt:03:23:23: <pikhq> (also an unpleasent thing about Tcl (although Tcl handles it better *AND* there's a package in Tcllib to do tail call optimisation, so you shouldn't run into it if you're sane))
2006-08-29.txt:03:41:42: <RodgerTheGreat> hey, uh- question: could anyone recommend a TCL interpreter for OSX, preferably one with downloadable binaries?
2006-08-29.txt:03:41:50: <RodgerTheGreat> I think I want to learn TCL
2006-08-29.txt:03:41:58: <pikhq> First, it's Tcl.
2006-08-29.txt:03:42:13: <pikhq> Second, there's only one Tcl interpreter, and that is Tcl.
2006-08-29.txt:03:43:47: <Razor-X> Can you reccomend a Tcl compiler?
2006-08-29.txt:03:44:15: <pikhq> No Tcl compilers (except maybe the bytecode compiler that's part of the interpreter).
2006-08-29.txt:03:45:20: <RodgerTheGreat> well, can I get OSX binaries for Tcl anywhere?
2006-08-29.txt:03:46:06: <GreyKnight> http://tcltkaqua.sourceforge.net/
2006-08-29.txt:03:46:50: <pikhq> http://tcltkaqua.sourceforge.net/
2006-08-29.txt:19:31:25: <pikhq> The Tcl way is nice, since it conforms to everything else in the language (Yay, Polish notation!)
2006-08-29.txt:19:32:15: <pikhq> *sigh* Tcl would be evil if it used RPN.
2006-09-01.txt:22:49:34: <GreyKnight>  3:  http://www.foxmovies.com/fightclub/
2006-09-02.txt:01:05:54: <ihope> Tcl Tcl Tcl...
2006-09-02.txt:01:06:27: <pikhq> Tcl.
2006-09-02.txt:01:06:40: <ihope> Not Tcl either.
2006-09-02.txt:01:10:09: <ihope_> Haskell Python Curry Lisp Tcl 1L C, see?
2006-09-02.txt:01:10:43: <ihope_> s/Tcl/J++/?
2006-09-03.txt:22:16:48: <pikhq> It seems that it would be possible to implement this inside of a slave interpreter in Tcl. . .
2006-09-04.txt:21:39:11: <pikhq> ihope: That doesn't work quite so well in Tcl regexps.
2006-09-04.txt:23:05:12: * pikhq much abused Tcl to do so
2006-09-05.txt:01:17:56: <pikhq> I just set up a Tcl slave interpreter, remove it's builtin commands, and replace them with aliases that compile the macro language's commands.
2006-09-05.txt:01:18:03: <pikhq> Let Tcl parse for me.
2006-09-06.txt:03:57:53: <pikhq> I'm a Tcler.
2006-09-06.txt:03:58:02: <Razor-X> Does TCL have implicit casting?
2006-09-09.txt:02:28:49: <pikhq> A parser? Who needs to write that? Tcl does the job for me. :p
2006-09-10.txt:02:58:20: <pikhq> (yay, Tcl!)
2006-09-16.txt:03:07:48: <pikhq> Tcl, an admittedly high-level language, doesn't do anything like that. . .
2006-09-16.txt:03:09:26: <pikhq> Tcl has a procedure "if". One of it's arguments is a Tcl expression (evaluated by expr). This is pretty much just a superset of such C expressions as a ? b : c, a!=c, etc. . .
2006-09-16.txt:18:15:38: <pikhq> Tclsh is an implementation of Tcl. . .
2006-09-19.txt:03:38:49: <pikhq> It's Tcl's "simple" regexp syntax ATM.
2006-09-20.txt:00:19:23: <pikhq> Only if you count {} as a C program, a Tcl program, etc.
2006-09-21.txt:02:04:04: <pikhq> Tcl.
2006-09-21.txt:02:04:13: <pikhq> Mmm. Tcl.
2006-09-21.txt:02:04:52: * ihope tcls pikhq with a feather
2006-09-21.txt:03:33:21: <pikhq> I'm a Tcler. ;)
2006-09-23.txt:20:31:09: <pikhq> calamari: I prefer to just make a language which can be parsed by Tclsh for me. :p
2006-10-01.txt:21:24:06: <pikhq> I take it you're a Tcler?
2006-10-01.txt:21:26:31: <pikhq> If I didn't have _, then it would conflict with a Tcl command.
2006-10-03.txt:23:56:27: <pikhq> Brainfuck has the [], BASIC has IF, C has if() {} & while() {}, and Tcl has if {} {} & while {} {}.
2006-10-04.txt:23:35:42: <pikhq> Of course, I *could* be lazy and just use "brainfucktobfm.tcl". . .
2006-10-08.txt:21:34:50: <oerjan> grok and grok, i thought i read the tcl the other day...
2006-10-08.txt:22:24:10: <pikhq> Mmkay. Got argument delimiters in bfm.tcl.
2006-10-11.txt:22:53:41: <pikhq> ./bfm.tcl --file filename --strip (1, 0) --optimize (1, 0)
2006-10-12.txt:23:50:37: <Razor-X> Is it all written in TCL?
2006-10-13.txt:00:26:05: <Razor-X> So BFM is written in partly C partly TCL?
2006-10-13.txt:00:26:44: <pikhq> Razor-X: No, it's all in Tcl. He's referring to the bits that implement the C target.
2006-10-13.txt:00:36:04: <Razor-X> Then I guess I shall see if I can read TCL.
2006-10-14.txt:00:05:17: <pikhq> My favorite way of writing a compiler: design the language so Tcl can parse it for me. :p
2006-10-14.txt:04:34:21: <pikhq> Including Tcl, the functional language that thinks its an imperative one. :p
2006-10-17.txt:02:19:16: <oerjan> oh, and in the tarball bfm.tcl there is one $:location that should be $::location or something.
2006-10-17.txt:04:03:07: <pikhq> It's got more lines than bfm.tcl. XD
2006-10-20.txt:17:38:02: <pikhq> I could probably change brainfucktobfm.tcl for the job. . .
2006-10-22.txt:05:18:27: <pikhq> Although BFM has a semiTcl syntax, instead of a semiC one.
2006-10-22.txt:23:26:27: <pikhq> Tcl or C.
2006-10-24.txt:17:22:28: <oerjan> Perhaps tcl's comment syntax is available automatically, whatever it is
2006-10-24.txt:17:24:49: <pikhq> oerjan: Tcl's comment syntax would be easy to add.
2006-10-25.txt:19:38:36: <pikhq> I just assume Tcl handles this sanely. ;)
2006-10-25.txt:19:40:43: <pikhq> Tcl, I *think*, handles multiple sources sanely (source is used in Tcl packages). . .
2006-10-25.txt:19:57:03: <oerjan> hah, Tcl load lists as a bug that it can load a file multiple times
2006-10-26.txt:01:57:17: <pikhq> Or, rather, Tcl.
2006-10-26.txt:02:17:43: * pikhq curses more at Tcl
2006-10-26.txt:02:18:02: <jix> i think tcl is a pretty awful language
2006-10-26.txt:02:18:12: <pikhq> jix: The reason why Tcl is used is because Tcl has the unique property of being a ready-made parser for BFM (by chance).
2006-10-26.txt:02:19:21: <pikhq> I'm rather fond of Tcl, personally. . .
2006-10-26.txt:02:20:03: <jix> i didn't take a deep look into tcl (only when trying the ruby/tk module which isn't based on the c/tk api but on tcltk...)
2006-10-31.txt:03:50:12: <bsmntbombdood> yuck tcl
2006-10-31.txt:04:16:39: <bsmntbombdood> tcl is weird
2006-10-31.txt:04:16:52: <pikhq> My Tcl style is also a bit weird. . .
2006-11-04.txt:20:08:09: <pikhq> SevenInchBread: That was Tcl.
2006-11-04.txt:20:10:08: * pikhq huggeth Tcl
2006-11-04.txt:22:52:37: <pikhq> I just got bored and did a Tcl Brainfuck interpreter.
2006-11-04.txt:23:22:46: * pikhq has his Tcl Brainfuck interpreter working. . .
2006-11-04.txt:23:40:23: <pikhq> We compile to Tcl, and evaluate the compiled code. XD
2006-11-05.txt:05:48:34: <pikhq> I'm a Tcler, as you all should know. . .
2006-11-05.txt:05:49:01: <pikhq> [lappend x $x 1] gives you the same list in Tcl, BTW.
2006-11-11.txt:02:17:30: <xor> Shame you wrote it in tcl  ;)
2006-11-11.txt:02:18:58: <pikhq> Writing in Tcl gives me a one-line parser!
2006-11-11.txt:03:07:21: <pikhq> In Tcl, while not required, this is how libraries are typically set up.
2006-11-11.txt:03:08:14: <pikhq> (a small handful of libraries (Tk and Expect come to mind) clutter up the global namespace, but that's because they're rather old libraries, from before Tcl had namespaces, and so namespaces aren't used so old code still works)
2006-12-02.txt:17:31:03: <pikhq> My bfm.tcl rewrite is now partially working.
2006-12-02.txt:23:53:10: <Razor-X> You should write actual documentation so that people who don't know TCL can help out.
2006-12-08.txt:01:10:56: <pikhq> I found the Tcl style guide. . . I'm trying to follow it exactly.
2006-12-09.txt:05:40:02: * pikhq would be liable to just write a Tcl WM, just to prove it could be done
2006-12-09.txt:06:15:10: <pikhq> Of course, I think that Tcl's beautiful. ;)
2006-12-15.txt:01:32:10: <bsmntbombdood> bsmntbombdood.mooo.com/testclosure.c
2006-12-15.txt:01:32:51: <bsmntbombdood> or even http://bsmntbombdood.mooo.com/testclosure.c
2006-12-20.txt:04:38:30: * pikhq recommends you rewrite the bot in Tcl.
2006-12-20.txt:04:38:52: <pikhq> With [package require irc], from Tcllib, you've got your work cut out for you.
2006-12-20.txt:18:57:09: <pikhq> Like in Tcl:
2006-12-23.txt:23:23:44: <pikhq> Like, when I wrote brainfucktobfm.tcl. . ..
2006-12-24.txt:00:43:10: * pikhq has seen the reason behind the Tcl style guide's recommendation for copious parentheses in expr expressions. . .
2006-12-24.txt:02:45:14: <pikhq> Not in Tcl.
2006-12-24.txt:02:45:26: <pikhq> Of course, my BF implementation in Tcl is a bit. . . Lazy.
2006-12-24.txt:02:45:51: <pikhq> Basically, I compile the Brainfuck code in-memory to Tcl, and then evaluate the compiled code. ;)
2006-12-28.txt:18:25:24: <pikhq> (look in macro.tcl, proc string, for the gory details)
2006-12-28.txt:18:31:38: <pikhq> (you'll need to install Tcl and Tcllib for BFM)
2006-12-31.txt:04:53:07: <RodgerTheGreat_> I'm not sure it can take the place of C as a primary coding language, but I think it'd make a nice equivalent of perl or TCL as a primary scripting and utility language
2006-12-31.txt:21:24:09: <pikhq> I do Tcl natively. . .
2007-01-03.txt:02:49:32: * pikhq went Basic -> Javascript -> rm -rf basic -> Tcl -> shell -> C -> C++ -> way, way too many esolangs.
2007-01-09.txt:03:28:41: * pikhq does Tcl
2007-01-12.txt:19:34:00: <oklopol> http://bsmntbombdood.mooo.com/testclosure.c
2007-01-13.txt:23:26:41: <pikhq> My personal build targets C, Tcl, and Brainfuck.
2007-01-13.txt:23:26:54: <pikhq> (the interpreter just compiles to Tcl and executes that)
2007-01-13.txt:23:27:35: <pikhq> It compiles to a simplified BFM subset, which can be interpreted by a Tcl interpreter with the right procs in place.
2007-01-15.txt:22:25:52: * pikhq realises one thing that could be much faster in BFM, when compiled into Tcl and interpreted. . .
2007-01-15.txt:22:29:37: <pikhq> I just need to get c.tcl pulled over onto my laptop and package it up.
2007-01-15.txt:22:30:07: <pikhq> tclsh ./bfm.tcl -f ~/esoteric/bfm/bott.bfm  1.22s user 0.04s system 56% cpu 2.218 total
2007-01-15.txt:22:35:17: <pikhq> tclsh ./bfm.tcl -f ~/esoteric/bfm/bott.bfm -I  285.46s user 0.37s system 98% cpu 4:48.95 total
2007-01-15.txt:22:41:25: <pikhq> tclsh ./bfm.tcl -f ~/esoteric/bfm/bott.bfm -I  130.26s user 0.34s system 92% cpu 2:20.87 total
2007-01-15.txt:22:41:42: <pikhq> tclsh ./bfm.tcl -f ~/esoteric/bfm/bott.bfm  0.89s user 0.05s system 93% cpu 1.005 total
2007-01-16.txt:03:47:43: * pikhq much prefers the Tcl way of things. . .
2007-01-16.txt:03:51:53: <pikhq> With Tcl, the brackets really, *really* make sense.
2007-01-17.txt:02:26:38: * pikhq would use Tcl, but mostly just because I know Tcl, and know of a premade IRC parser for Tcl.
2007-01-21.txt:00:25:01: <pikhq> http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/bf.tcl
2007-01-21.txt:00:28:24: <pikhq> Tcl.
2007-01-21.txt:00:31:48: <pikhq> And is written in Tcl.
2007-01-21.txt:00:31:55: <oklopol> i don't know tcl
2007-01-21.txt:01:03:47: <pikhq> http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/bf.tcl
2007-01-21.txt:01:16:24: <pikhq> I like Tcl. . . It does what I need it to do, and I know it.
2007-01-21.txt:01:21:25: <fizzie> Re TCL, why not  string repeat ">0" $n  instead of the for loop? :p
2007-01-27.txt:03:33:52: <pikhq> Tcl?
2007-02-22.txt:07:44:38: <SevenInchBread> which is just like... Python stuff that turns around and does Tk/Tcl stuff 
2007-03-26.txt:01:39:18: <Figs> Tcl?
2007-04-01.txt:04:41:23: <Figs> Lua, Python, Perl, Tcl
2007-04-01.txt:04:42:10: <Pikhq> I recommend Tcl. :)
2007-04-05.txt:06:38:08: <Pikhq> But Tcl one-ups Basic with the cool feature of having functions.
2007-04-05.txt:06:39:34: <Pikhq> . . . Fine. Tcl's got this funny thing called "a sane syntax".
2007-04-28.txt:17:03:39: <pikhq> Ah, right. Made it work with a newer build of Tcllib.
2007-05-20.txt:20:02:49: * SimonRC watches with fascination:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBwd_WSvoU  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD9TdZMRsIs  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzqittCLmGs
2007-05-26.txt:00:29:46: <Pikhq> Hrm. . . 99bottles/99.{c,perl,py,tcl,b,c++,sh,zsh,csh}, anyone?
2007-05-26.txt:17:27:08: <Pikhq> So far, I've been able to figure out that the issue is not in optimize.tcl
2007-05-28.txt:20:24:03: <Pikhq> PEBBLE is written in Tcl.
2007-05-29.txt:23:28:01: <Pikhq> I prefer C, C++, Tcl, and a tiny hint of Zsh scripting.
2007-05-29.txt:23:28:32: <ehird`> Tcl's type system makes me weep.
2007-05-29.txt:23:28:39: <lament> tcl has a type system?
2007-05-29.txt:23:28:44: <SimonRC> ehird`: Tcl hs a type system?
2007-05-29.txt:23:28:58: <lament> i thought tcl was all strings
2007-05-29.txt:23:29:35: <ehird`> The two overlapping target markets for Tcl are filled by Ruby and Zsh for me
2007-05-29.txt:23:30:02: <Pikhq> Tcl's a bit of an acquired taste, though. . .
2007-05-29.txt:23:38:07: <ehird`> tcl
2007-05-29.txt:23:41:10: <Pikhq> ehird`: Thoughts, beyond "Eeew, Tcl"?
2007-05-29.txt:23:56:28: <ehird`> i don't use tcl
2007-05-31.txt:19:10:31: <Pikhq> oklopol: Use Tcl.
2007-05-31.txt:19:32:10: * Pikhq is too much of a Tcler for his own good
2007-06-15.txt:17:42:21: <pikhq> I'm a Tcler and an HP calculator/dc user. ;)
2007-06-17.txt:03:29:17: <pikhq> Tcl doesn't have that problem.
2007-06-17.txt:03:29:41: <SimonRC> ISTR that everything is a string in Tcl
2007-06-17.txt:05:29:48: <pikhq> SimonRC: According to Tcl code?
2007-06-17.txt:05:33:21: <pikhq> Fine, fine. . . So scalar variables can represent strings, lists, longs, or floats. . . The tclvar_t struct stores one of them, and converts when needed.
2007-07-03.txt:22:47:11: <pikhq> Makes sense in Tcl, though, since everything is a string. . .
2007-07-03.txt:22:52:01: <pikhq> In Tcl, "foo" + "bar" is a syntax error.
2007-07-07.txt:08:13:50: <pikhq> edwardk: And of Tcl.
2007-07-08.txt:04:30:00: <pikhq> Sukoshi: I'm a Tcler.
2007-07-08.txt:04:30:22: <RodgerTheGreat> pikhq: does that mean you're TCLish?
2007-07-08.txt:04:31:40: <Sukoshi> You know full well that TCL is a dying profession ;)
2007-07-08.txt:04:32:42: <pikhq> (I'm sorry, but Tcl's not a dying language)
2007-07-08.txt:05:53:25: <bsmntbombdood> pikhq: rms replaced tcl with guile
2007-07-09.txt:06:06:29: <pikhq> fax: You're quite right: everything the body needs is provided by Tcl.
2007-07-09.txt:06:06:49: <fax> wait Tcl has macros which dont suck?
2007-07-09.txt:06:13:13: <pikhq> Depends upon the Tcl version. . .
2007-07-09.txt:06:14:47: <pikhq> The stable version involves returning a temporary proc name; this lets the [lambda] feature work with the miriad Tcl functions that assume a proc is pass by reference.
2007-07-09.txt:06:15:44: <pikhq> http://wiki.tcl.tk/519 <-- Lambda implementations in the stable version of Tcl.
2007-07-09.txt:06:19:32: <pikhq> http://wiki.tcl.tk/10743 <-- I think this is my favorite 8.4 Tcl implementation of anonymous, first-class functions. . .
2007-07-09.txt:06:26:13: <bsmntbombdood> i think that's worthy of a few ooohs, but not if i don't know tcl
2007-07-09.txt:06:26:47: <bsmntbombdood> guile, not tcl!
2007-07-09.txt:06:26:52: <pikhq> First step to make functions first-class: rewrite part of the interpreter. . . From within Tcl. :p
2007-07-09.txt:06:30:33: <pikhq> Tcl is given lambda. . . From pure Tcl.
2007-07-13.txt:07:44:39: <oklopol> getClass()
2007-07-14.txt:05:03:21: <pikhq> Sukoshi: Write a tutorial titled "Learn Lisp for Tclers!".
2007-07-14.txt:05:03:32: <Sukoshi> pikhq: That's your job, TCLer ;)
2007-07-14.txt:05:15:27: <pikhq> Square brackets? You'd love Tcl, then.
2007-07-14.txt:20:05:00: <pikhq> (Ah, Tcl. . . :D)
2007-07-14.txt:20:05:42: <pikhq> I at least *think* Tcl was the first one that I was serious about coding in; before that, I'd mostly done pointless toys.
2007-07-14.txt:20:06:43: <pikhq> Oh, yeah. I'd done Javascript long before Tcl. Created some somewhat useless but 'serious' scripts in it.
2007-07-14.txt:20:25:50: <pikhq> Tcl == short GUIs.
2007-07-14.txt:22:24:43: <ehird`> tcl id guess
2007-07-15.txt:00:32:05: <pikhq> Tcl.
2007-07-15.txt:00:32:12: <pikhq> Tcl/Tk.
2007-07-15.txt:00:33:33: * Figs doesn't know Tcl/Tk, obviously :)
2007-07-15.txt:00:33:44: <Figs> well, I've read the tutorial on Tcl a while back...
2007-07-15.txt:00:41:33: <pikhq> (PEBBLE code, BTW, is technically 100% valid Tcl code, syntactically)
2007-07-15.txt:00:50:16: <pikhq> The PEBBLE parser *is* the Tcl parser; I just start up a slave interp, remove Tcl commands, and bind in PEBBLE ones.
2007-07-15.txt:06:26:57: * pikhq is a Tcler; variable references are preceded with $ or used as an argument to set.
2007-07-15.txt:06:32:11: <bsmntbombdood> pikhq: guile replaced tcl
2007-07-15.txt:06:34:46: <pikhq> bsmntbombdood: Scheme and Tcl both pwn. . . ;)
2007-07-15.txt:06:55:31: <pikhq> bsmntbombdood: I'm a poor, poor Tcler. Could you give me your lambda in Tclexps?
2007-07-15.txt:06:55:45: <bsmntbombdood> i don't know tcl...
2007-07-15.txt:06:56:42: <pikhq> I think that's the correct translation into Tcl 8.5. . .
2007-07-15.txt:06:57:40: <bsmntbombdood> tcl's code isn't data, is it?
2007-07-15.txt:07:01:10: <oerjan> bsmntbombdood: in tcl
2007-07-15.txt:07:07:27: <oerjan> is [apply [apply {x {{y {x}}}} 3] 2] actually 3, or does tcl break on it?
2007-07-15.txt:07:10:46: <oerjan> pikhq: actually i am asking if tcl does lambda calculus worth the name
2007-07-15.txt:07:12:18: <pikhq> http://wiki.tcl.tk/4824 This appears to be one solution.
2007-07-15.txt:07:13:55: <pikhq> Note that that code is written using the latest stable Tcl build, which doesn't have functions as a first-class object.
2007-07-15.txt:07:16:08: <pikhq> http://wiki.tcl.tk/16182 This describes the alpha Tcl build. ;)
2007-07-15.txt:07:29:59: <pikhq> Sorry; I'm kind of new to doing strictly functional coding in Tcl.
2007-07-15.txt:23:13:58: <pikhq> Tcl.
2007-07-15.txt:23:44:25: <pikhq> Tclexps are love.
2007-07-16.txt:22:03:22: <pikhq> lament: Tcl makes the difference fairly easy.
2007-07-16.txt:23:01:15: * pikhq is a fan of Tclexp. Seems a bit more functional
2007-07-16.txt:23:01:34: <pikhq> . . . Fine, so I'm saying "I like Tcl" way too much now.
2007-07-16.txt:23:02:31: <oerjan> Tcl is not functional, it doesn't even have properly scoped anonymous closures >:)
2007-07-16.txt:23:05:35: <pikhq> Tcl can now be considered a superset of lambda calculus. . .
2007-07-16.txt:23:07:45: <pikhq> In Tcl, it's a matter of different syntax, rather than needing a huge layer of code to add onto it.
2007-07-17.txt:05:07:21: <pikhq> immibis: Obviously I need to write something in Tcl.
2007-07-17.txt:05:07:41: <pikhq> Tcl is easier to extend.
2007-07-17.txt:05:08:07: <pikhq> If I *really* feel like it, I can rewrite the basic semantics of Tcl. . .
2007-07-17.txt:05:09:19: * pikhq runs off, feeling like patching Tcl's "if" statement. :p
2007-07-18.txt:04:55:47: <pikhq> bsmntbombdood's code as a Tcl list.
2007-07-18.txt:04:55:55: <oklopol> or tcl
2007-07-18.txt:04:56:29: <pikhq> (I'd express it as a Tcl array, except that that can only be expressed as a list)
2007-07-18.txt:04:57:57: <pikhq> bsmntbombdood: Tcl arrays work as foo(bar). . . Associative arrays can't contain arrays, since arrays aren't a first class type.
2007-07-18.txt:04:58:38: <bsmntbombdood> tcl is a wimpy scripting language
2007-07-18.txt:22:36:50: <pikhq> Tcl has 11 rules which fully define it's semantics and syntax. :D
2007-07-18.txt:22:37:45: <pikhq> http://swoolley.org/man.cgi/n/Tcl The Endekalogue.
2007-07-19.txt:20:11:17: <pikhq> puts "Says this little Tcl/Ruby polyglot (I think)."
2007-07-19.txt:22:39:10: <pikhq> [set Tcl "FTW"]
2007-07-19.txt:23:21:31: <lament> in tcl no doubt?
2007-07-20.txt:20:09:33: <ehird`> "a metapattern-filled holy cross between Lisp, Perl, Python, Ruby, Tcl and C# that isn't as horrible as it sounds"
2007-07-21.txt:17:10:52: <oerjan> oklofok: never! especially when i am having trouble with #haskellers outclevering me :)
2007-07-22.txt:22:21:34: <pikhq> Tcl doesn't include a default object system, but that doesn't make it useless. . .
2007-07-24.txt:21:33:40: <pikhq> Maybe I should just try and do something that's seperate from the Tcl syntax. . . XD
2007-07-25.txt:03:06:43: * pikhq likes Tcl. . . Dynamic in both senses. . .
2007-07-25.txt:03:08:24: <Sukoshi`> I have to say, Tcl's case was a bit weird. It had a whole bunch of steam behind it, and all the steam just suddenly died one fine day.
2007-07-25.txt:03:09:15: <pikhq> Sun was a large driving force behind Tcl, until one day, when they decided to push Java instead.
2007-07-25.txt:03:09:28: <Sukoshi`> But Tcl died a lot after that.
2007-07-25.txt:03:09:38: <pikhq> Which is really sad, since Tcl's a much nicer language.
2007-07-25.txt:03:09:47: <Sukoshi`> Tcl still had steam, especially because a lot of Jabber's stuff was originally on Tcl, until I'd say 3 years ago.
2007-07-25.txt:03:10:22: <pikhq> Tcl seems to be moving towards a more functional idea of the language. . .
2007-07-25.txt:03:12:16: * pikhq knows 1 easy way to make Tcl perfectly fine for functional programming (other than using the "Jim" interpreter). . .
2007-07-25.txt:03:15:44: * pikhq downloads an 8.5 Tclkit to experiment with adding that rule to Tcl. . .
2007-07-25.txt:03:19:37: <pikhq> Jim is pretty much a light Tcl interpreter, with nice things like "closures" added.
2007-07-25.txt:03:27:44: <Sukoshi`> If you learn a Lisp (CL or Scheme), I'll learn TCL.
2007-07-25.txt:03:54:26: <pikhq> I've got lambda added to Tcl 8.5 in 12 lines.
2007-07-25.txt:03:56:52: <pikhq> All we do for Tcl is make the parser interpret the leading word of a command as starting with {*}, and add on a small lambda function (return [list apply [list $arguments $body]]), and you're done.
2007-07-25.txt:04:10:15: <pikhq> http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/add_anon.tcl There's something to be said for simplicity in your radical language modifications. . .
2007-07-25.txt:04:13:05: <bsmntbombdood> tcl exps are kindof sexpish aren't they?
2007-07-25.txt:23:16:42: <oerjan> but you could probably adapt scheme's system to any sufficiently sexpy language, perhaps tcl...
2007-07-25.txt:23:19:54: <pikhq> http://wiki.tcl.tk/11155
2007-07-25.txt:23:35:45: <pikhq> I'm too busy going "Oooh. Lisp macros in Tcl." :p
2007-07-26.txt:05:47:19: <pikhq> Tcl + comments works well for me.
2007-07-26.txt:05:49:03: <immibis> and probably in tcl once i learn it.
2007-07-27.txt:06:07:14: <pikhq> Of course, I come from Tcl, where Unicode is par for the course.
2007-07-27.txt:06:39:02: <immibis> pikhq: i'm learning tcl, and is that legal, incrementing a string?
2007-07-27.txt:06:44:23: <pikhq> Have you read the Tcl man page?
2007-07-27.txt:06:45:20: <pikhq> http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.4/TclCmd/Tcl.htm
2007-07-27.txt:06:45:45: <pikhq> That's the full syntax and semantics of Tcl. . . Memorize it, and your Tcling will be better off.
2007-07-27.txt:06:50:47: <immibis> thats a clever website name, tcl.tk
2007-07-27.txt:06:52:03: <immibis> i assume it has info on tcl/tk as well?
2007-07-27.txt:06:52:53: <pikhq> Yeah, it's the offical Tcl/Tk website.
[too many lines; stopping]