| 17 May 2022 |
 lel#8383 | 
Download unknown.png | 03:06:59 |
| lel#8383 | it took me a moment to wrap my head around what's going on here, is there no way to partially apply a higher order function by binding a function as a subject? like i guess what i was expecting was that because double is spelled as a subject it wouldnt be evaluated with 1 and would instead get passed in directly as π©, then only be evaluated as a function when we run into the π in F | 03:06:59 |
| lel#8383 | * it took me a moment to wrap my head around what's going on here, is there no way to partially apply a higher order function by binding a function as a subject? like i guess what i was expecting was that because double is spelled as a subject it wouldnt be evaluated with 1 and would instead be evaluated as a subject that returns itself when called (causing a bind), causing it to become the π© in F, then only be evaluated as a function when we run into the π in F | 03:08:22 |
| lel#8383 | but instead of doing a bind with the subject double it seems that the after promotes(???) the subject double to the function Double and then evaluates as a normal after | 03:09:35 |
| lel#8383 | i guess that means you can't partially apply a higher order function with a function argument? | 03:10:12 |
| lel#8383 | 
Download unknown.png | 03:14:02 |
| lel#8383 | at least not directly, of course you could do something like this but now youre asking the caller to enlist a function at the call site basically just to trick the parser into not understanding it's a function | 03:14:02 |
| lel#8383 | * it took me a moment to wrap my head around what's going on here, is there no way to partially apply a higher order function by binding a function as a subject? like i guess what i was expecting was that because double is spelled as a subject it wouldnt be evaluated with 1 and would instead be evaluated as a subject that returns itself-as-a-subject when called (causing a bind), causing it to become the π© in F, then only be evaluated as a function when we run into the π in F | 03:16:51 |
| lel#8383 | * but instead of doing a bind with the subject double it seems that the after promotes(???) the subject double to the function Double and then evaluates it like a regular after | 03:17:31 |
 razetime | you need constant (Λ) | 03:20:41 |
| lel#8383 | bless you | 03:20:51 |
| razetime | Fβ(doubleΛ) should do the thing | 03:21:20 |
| lel#8383 | i knew there had to be some modifier i didnt know about yet that made this work, thank you! | 03:22:27 |
| razetime | what's a good way to get byte length of a string? So far I have this | 07:58:01 |
 dzaima | there's {(β π©)+Β΄β₯π©β₯β@+128βΏ2048βΏ65536} | 08:13:57 |
| dzaima | Marshall (@+60000)β₯@+65536 gives the incorrect result in JS BQN due to lesseq using <= on the surrogate pair string & single-char string | 08:18:16 |
| razetime | ah that is better | 08:30:06 |
| razetime | the alignment here looks quite strange. | 08:40:53 |
| dzaima | ππ«π¦π π¬π‘π’ there isn't in monospace width | 08:45:06 |
| razetime | ah, right | 08:46:48 |
 mondra | it's probably pulling those from your math font | 08:49:35 |
 Marshall | β° dzaima This is +Β΄(@+0βΏ128βΏ2048βΏ65536)βΈβ. | 11:24:18 |
| Marshall | β° dzaima Fixed this. | 12:02:35 |
|  Adeline joined the room. | 14:24:18 |
 actalley | Is constant associated with double quote in keymaps some kind of mnemonic related to lisp quote? | 14:36:57 |
| Marshall | No. | 15:54:25 |
| Marshall | Was one of the later additions to the keyboard and there weren't that many places for it. | 15:55:15 |
|  hardkorebob joined the room. | 17:30:17 |
|  OsKaR31415 joined the room. | 19:30:44 |
| lel#8383 | why not on the 7 key next to the other 1-modifiers? | 23:24:57 |
