2009 Mar 08 23:04:05 it looks like 4pm PST has arrived 2009 Mar 08 23:05:02 Ready to start? 2009 Mar 08 23:05:16 actually I guess it's PDT now 2009 Mar 08 23:05:25 yeah 2009 Mar 08 23:06:19 I wonder if the time change is going to throw anyone 2009 Mar 08 23:06:42 I didn't think about it until just now 2009 Mar 08 23:07:13 ok, so what are we starting with? 2009 Mar 08 23:07:27 leftovers from the from the last section wasn't it? 2009 Mar 08 23:09:15 1.45 2009 Mar 08 23:09:26 ok 2009 Mar 08 23:09:44 ah, right 2009 Mar 08 23:09:47 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_1/1.45 2009 Mar 08 23:10:40 did anyone else do 1.45? 2009 Mar 08 23:11:01 should we wait another hour? 2009 Mar 08 23:11:11 http://mibbit.com/pb/YlGkdF 2009 Mar 08 23:11:26 Alternately, we could move on to 2.1 directly. 2009 Mar 08 23:11:34 i didnt finish those last problems 2009 Mar 08 23:11:44 oh 2009 Mar 08 23:11:51 but am looking over your solutions 2009 Mar 08 23:12:10 aamar: looks like we came to the same conclusion 2009 Mar 08 23:12:12 also not sure how peoepl handled the time change 2009 Mar 08 23:12:13 yes 2009 Mar 08 23:12:16 as its not universal and all 2009 Mar 08 23:12:49 a few regulars appear not here -- nicou, chrisconley 2009 Mar 08 23:13:08 chrisconley is here 2009 Mar 08 23:13:16 albeit quiet 2009 Mar 08 23:13:23 nicou-not-here is not 2009 Mar 08 23:13:24 mariorz: yeah, I'm a little worried about that time change 2009 Mar 08 23:13:31 maybe we should wait an hour 2009 Mar 08 23:13:48 chrisconley jsut answerd some moments ago 2009 Mar 08 23:14:14 yeah, but not since then, maybe he stepped away 2009 Mar 08 23:14:21 t 2009 Mar 08 23:14:37 well i have something that is not specific to an ex 2009 Mar 08 23:14:44 ok, shoot 2009 Mar 08 23:14:52 maybe im not groking it right 2009 Mar 08 23:15:04 but my mind fails to be boggled by the represent data as procs 2009 Mar 08 23:15:36 boggle in the mind of the beholder 2009 Mar 08 23:15:37 i mean its really being stored as data in the end 2009 Mar 08 23:15:50 only not the form of data youre getting out 2009 Mar 08 23:16:07 well, all programs are actually data 2009 Mar 08 23:16:22 sorry, i'll probably be in and out tonight 2009 Mar 08 23:16:56 chrisconley: oh, ok, we were just discussing waiting another hour due to the timechange 2009 Mar 08 23:18:14 mariorz: I mean a running program is "just data" in some sense 2009 Mar 08 23:18:33 yeah, it looks like it's only 23:18 gmt 2009 Mar 08 23:18:36 inimino: i can see that 2009 Mar 08 23:18:53 but there are differences in that most programming languages limit the ways you can edit a running program 2009 Mar 08 23:29:25 -=- bartek_ is now known as bartek 2009 Mar 08 23:30:38 Okay, restarting in 30 mins... 2009 Mar 08 23:30:54 -*- inimino puts on some tea 2009 Mar 08 23:31:25 In the meantime, here's my 1.46: http://mibbit.com/pb/95cwDc 2009 Mar 08 23:31:40 -*- offby1 ponders tea too 2009 Mar 08 23:31:41 same as inimino's but a little clunkier 2009 Mar 08 23:32:06 mines here: http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_1/1.46 2009 Mar 08 23:32:23 and on the wiki: http://inimino.org/SICP-wiki/doku.php?id=exercise_1.46 2009 Mar 08 23:32:28 with a question 2009 Mar 08 23:33:13 if anyone thought of a solution 2009 Mar 08 23:43:02 hm, my 1.46 was wrong 2009 Mar 08 23:45:32 what's wrong in it? 2009 Mar 08 23:48:19 Oh, sqrt needs a starting amount 2009 Mar 08 23:48:46 I forgot to apply the function returned by iterative-improve 2009 Mar 08 23:48:53 Similarly, fixed-point should use the first-guess 2009 Mar 08 23:49:11 oh crap, I did it in sqrt too 2009 Mar 08 23:49:26 I only noticed the second error 2009 Mar 08 23:49:53 I was frustrated by that problem since I couldn't find a way to work around calling f twice 2009 Mar 08 23:51:34 I don't see how you can avoid it, if you break up the arguments into improve and good-enough 2009 Mar 08 23:51:44 -*- inimino fixes the other half of 1.46 2009 Mar 08 23:52:04 we both used an unnecessary lambda in 1.46 but in different places 2009 Mar 08 23:52:12 aamar: yeah, me neither 2009 Mar 08 23:52:24 Yes, I see that now. Helpful. 2009 Mar 08 23:52:32 unless you had a shared variable between the two 2009 Mar 08 23:53:02 but we don't have that yet 2009 Mar 08 23:53:16 right 2009 Mar 09 00:07:09 Okay, should we get going towards 2.1? 2009 Mar 09 00:07:46 yes 2009 Mar 09 00:08:04 yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:08:05 everyone around? 2009 Mar 09 00:08:12 inimino :X 2009 Mar 09 00:08:19 :) 2009 Mar 09 00:08:29 you're here too? :) 2009 Mar 09 00:08:44 yep. I idle about, reading conversations mostly 2009 Mar 09 00:09:19 cool :) 2009 Mar 09 00:09:56 I have yet to learn Scheme very well, but I'm familiar with a few other functional languages 2009 Mar 09 00:10:17 yeah I see you in #haskell too 2009 Mar 09 00:10:39 :) 2009 Mar 09 00:10:49 we're just working through SICP 2009 Mar 09 00:11:05 we're reviewing 2.1 today 2009 Mar 09 00:11:46 anyway... 2009 Mar 09 00:11:51 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.1 2009 Mar 09 00:12:14 there's mine 2009 Mar 09 00:12:20 chrisconley: you around? 2009 Mar 09 00:12:30 nicou-not-here seems to be not here... 2009 Mar 09 00:12:54 yeah, but i may still have to jump out 2009 Mar 09 00:13:05 ok 2009 Mar 09 00:13:06 http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/be559f7e20b8ae1690008f5af6e488f74520ef1f/2.ss#L49 2009 Mar 09 00:14:22 mariorz: yours and mine look much the same 2009 Mar 09 00:14:57 inimino: yep, i based mine on the final example though 2009 Mar 09 00:15:07 the final example? 2009 Mar 09 00:15:21 the one that reduces the fractions 2009 Mar 09 00:15:32 oh yeah, I noticed you reduced them 2009 Mar 09 00:15:54 http://github.com/chrisconley/sicp-exercises/blob/97744b766fca1c66d34d5a5e5c84b652a6432a9c/chapter2/ex2-01.ss 2009 Mar 09 00:16:01 http://mibbit.com/pb/7iKEpo 2009 Mar 09 00:17:32 chrisconley: you determine sign but where do you use that? 2009 Mar 09 00:18:11 hehe, yeah that looks a little fishy 2009 Mar 09 00:18:18 i thought i had it working... 2009 Mar 09 00:19:42 well those are all rather different, wow 2009 Mar 09 00:19:50 i think i may have not saved my final version 2009 Mar 09 00:20:42 aamar is simiar to ours 2009 Mar 09 00:21:02 looks like the problem didn't really say if the reduction was required or not 2009 Mar 09 00:21:03 the xor you never used? 2009 Mar 09 00:21:25 everyone else did that but me which is why mine is so short 2009 Mar 09 00:21:58 I didn't use the xor, you're right... needed it for an earlier version. 2009 Mar 09 00:22:08 http://pastie.org/411263 2009 Mar 09 00:22:11 Mine is conceptually similar to mariorz's solution 2009 Mar 09 00:22:22 github seems to be lagging again, the above link is my updated make-rat 2009 Mar 09 00:23:21 that one looks right 2009 Mar 09 00:23:38 2.2? 2009 Mar 09 00:23:50 chrisconley, okay, so that is equivalent to mine as well 2009 Mar 09 00:24:35 aamar: yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:24:43 I took the part about the reducing version of make-rat as a parenthetical remark 2009 Mar 09 00:24:59 so I based the improvement on the earlier example 2009 Mar 09 00:25:10 I guess the problem should specify 2009 Mar 09 00:25:54 -*- inimino wonders how to report bugs in the book 2009 Mar 09 00:27:07 anything else on 2.1? 2009 Mar 09 00:27:41 upwards and onwards http://github.com/chrisconley/sicp-exercises/blob/97744b766fca1c66d34d5a5e5c84b652a6432a9c/chapter2/ex2-02.ss 2009 Mar 09 00:28:14 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.2 2009 Mar 09 00:29:01 http://mibbit.com/pb/YmlQHL 2009 Mar 09 00:29:09 http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/be559f7e20b8ae1690008f5af6e488f74520ef1f/2.ss#L88 2009 Mar 09 00:29:19 bah github is not displaying my pushes today 2009 Mar 09 00:29:36 whats up with that 2009 Mar 09 00:29:48 yeah i'm seeing some delay too-what a pain 2009 Mar 09 00:30:02 chrisconley: yours and mine are pretty much identical 2009 Mar 09 00:30:41 yeah as is aamar's, i guess this was pretty straight forward 2009 Mar 09 00:30:41 aamar: yours and mine even more so 2009 Mar 09 00:30:49 theyre all the same 2009 Mar 09 00:30:52 yep 2009 Mar 09 00:31:20 ok 2009 Mar 09 00:31:25 2.3 2009 Mar 09 00:31:33 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.3 2009 Mar 09 00:31:34 http://github.com/chrisconley/sicp-exercises/blob/97744b766fca1c66d34d5a5e5c84b652a6432a9c/chapter2/ex2-03.ss 2009 Mar 09 00:31:35 http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/be559f7e20b8ae1690008f5af6e488f74520ef1f/2.ss#L109 2009 Mar 09 00:31:56 i didn't get why they wanted us to use the hint 2009 Mar 09 00:32:37 so we didn't have to redine a point, I assumed 2009 Mar 09 00:32:48 redefine 2009 Mar 09 00:33:03 i'm double checking but i don't think i used points 2009 Mar 09 00:33:27 yeah neither did i 2009 Mar 09 00:33:28 all you need are lengths to figure out area and perimeter 2009 Mar 09 00:33:33 yup 2009 Mar 09 00:33:36 well yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:33:49 they should've asked to compute the midpoint of the rectangle 2009 Mar 09 00:33:54 i used one point scratch that 2009 Mar 09 00:33:58 for the top-left pos 2009 Mar 09 00:33:59 but you have to come up with two represtations 2009 Mar 09 00:34:09 -*- inimino can't type 2009 Mar 09 00:34:18 yeah, i didn't :) 2009 Mar 09 00:34:26 well i started to 2009 Mar 09 00:34:29 I guess they expected you to use points in one of them 2009 Mar 09 00:34:37 but yeah unneeded 2009 Mar 09 00:36:13 hm... 2009 Mar 09 00:36:32 chrisconley: I don't understand how your make-rect actually defined a rectangle in the plane 2009 Mar 09 00:36:47 mariorz: i started going down the route you did with one point and two lengths 2009 Mar 09 00:36:48 http://mibbit.com/pb/wmilAx -- 2.3 (zoned out for a sec there) 2009 Mar 09 00:37:06 My alternate representation is a line and a point not on the line 2009 Mar 09 00:37:20 ahhh, there i go again not reading directions carefully 2009 Mar 09 00:37:28 i didn't see the "in a plane" part 2009 Mar 09 00:37:41 ah 2009 Mar 09 00:38:01 i guess thats why i left that top-left point 2009 Mar 09 00:38:47 yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:39:48 mariorz: I like your solution 2009 Mar 09 00:40:06 thx 2009 Mar 09 00:41:27 2.4? 2009 Mar 09 00:41:46 aamar: looks like you'd have to add some checks for invalid pairs of lines 2009 Mar 09 00:42:43 inimino: yes, error checking would probably be warranted 2009 Mar 09 00:43:06 ok, yeah 2.4 2009 Mar 09 00:43:10 2.4 -- http://mibbit.com/pb/PcC8ds 2009 Mar 09 00:43:13 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.4 2009 Mar 09 00:43:40 http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/be559f7e20b8ae1690008f5af6e488f74520ef1f/2.ss#L158 2009 Mar 09 00:43:43 http://github.com/chrisconley/sicp-exercises/blob/97744b766fca1c66d34d5a5e5c84b652a6432a9c/chapter2/ex1-04.ss 2009 Mar 09 00:43:47 theyre all gogin to be the same here to no 2009 Mar 09 00:44:30 yup 2009 Mar 09 00:44:53 yeah, this took me a little to go through the substitutions though with all those lambdas 2009 Mar 09 00:45:23 yeah, likewise 2009 Mar 09 00:46:03 looks like we all got exactly the same answer though 2009 Mar 09 00:46:08 yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:46:28 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.5 2009 Mar 09 00:46:37 http://pastebin.com/m510bbfcd 2009 Mar 09 00:46:37 http://github.com/chrisconley/sicp-exercises/blob/97744b766fca1c66d34d5a5e5c84b652a6432a9c/chapter2/ex1-05.ss 2009 Mar 09 00:46:44 2.5 -- http://mibbit.com/pb/GmiXcG 2009 Mar 09 00:46:46 ah, this one was cool 2009 Mar 09 00:47:28 -*- inimino really needs to make clicking on links from IRC work again 2009 Mar 09 00:47:30 i got a couple of hints from eli.thegreenplace.net on this and the net :( 2009 Mar 09 00:47:34 nice one inimino 2009 Mar 09 00:47:39 next not net 2009 Mar 09 00:47:51 thanks 2009 Mar 09 00:48:50 inimino you using the terminal? 2009 Mar 09 00:48:57 yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:49:05 you're (as per irc and clicking links) 2009 Mar 09 00:49:10 on a mac by any chance? 2009 Mar 09 00:49:18 I had a plugin that handled it 2009 Mar 09 00:49:45 no, on a debian server in a screen session which I'm logged into over ssh 2009 Mar 09 00:49:52 on a mac you can do option click (two finget click on trackpad) on the url and there is an open url option 2009 Mar 09 00:50:14 yeah im logged over ssh to my screen session 2009 Mar 09 00:50:23 im talking about locally in your terminal window 2009 Mar 09 00:50:28 yeah, Gnome Terminal emulator had that 2009 Mar 09 00:50:38 but I'm using urxvt, which doesn't 2009 Mar 09 00:50:41 mariorz -- does yours work ? 2009 Mar 09 00:51:00 aamar: yeah 2009 Mar 09 00:51:03 meaning your solution to 2.5 2009 Mar 09 00:51:16 aamar: yeah, i think so, why? 2009 Mar 09 00:51:21 looks like it should 2009 Mar 09 00:51:25 http://www.jukie.net/~bart/blog/20070503013555 2009 Mar 09 00:52:08 mariorz's was confusing until I noticed the order of the arguments to factred 2009 Mar 09 00:52:28 inimino: yeah that part i didnt like 2009 Mar 09 00:52:58 was trying to come up with a solutoin that only required test but coudlnt come up with anyhting good 2009 Mar 09 00:55:07 aamar: divides-times is nice 2009 Mar 09 00:55:21 that's way better than "helper" which is all I came up with 2009 Mar 09 00:56:02 i unfortunately gotta run; i'll keep my eye out for the next meeting and what it covers; thanks! 2009 Mar 09 00:56:03 your function has a cleaner signature too 2009 Mar 09 00:56:18 chrisconley: see you next time! 2009 Mar 09 00:57:16 yeah +1 for aamar's 2009 Mar 09 00:57:34 stu8ball: that urxvt thing looks great, I'll have to look into it 2009 Mar 09 00:58:08 thx 2009 Mar 09 00:58:08 Okay, now I've understood mariorz's as well. 2009 Mar 09 00:58:15 2.6? 2009 Mar 09 00:58:40 ok 2009 Mar 09 00:58:51 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.6 2009 Mar 09 00:59:33 this one was hard 2009 Mar 09 00:59:45 looking at the wikipedia page helped 2009 Mar 09 00:59:52 oh yeah, this one 2009 Mar 09 01:00:01 this was fun :-) 2009 Mar 09 01:00:04 http://mibbit.com/pb/cE2pM8 2009 Mar 09 01:00:15 I didn't check my answers so they may be wrong 2009 Mar 09 01:00:30 thyre right inimino 2009 Mar 09 01:00:43 though i coudlnt figure them out after looking at them until i read wikipedia 2009 Mar 09 01:00:48 even after* 2009 Mar 09 01:01:11 ok 2009 Mar 09 01:01:40 and aamar has the same 2009 Mar 09 01:01:49 yep, same 2009 Mar 09 01:02:04 -*- inimino checks chrisconley's github 2009 Mar 09 01:03:13 looks like he didn't finish it 2009 Mar 09 01:03:18 anybody else? 2009 Mar 09 01:03:30 should we work through it? 2009 Mar 09 01:03:50 would be nice if someone explained it 2009 Mar 09 01:03:53 this one was more challenging than most of them I thought 2009 Mar 09 01:04:00 I'll give it a shot 2009 Mar 09 01:04:51 a Church numeral is a function which takes two armguments 2009 Mar 09 01:05:06 it applies the first argument to the second argument n times 2009 Mar 09 01:05:39 so the first one is (lambda (f) (lambda (x) x)) 2009 Mar 09 01:05:56 that's "zero" 2009 Mar 09 01:06:11 which applies f to x 0 times 2009 Mar 09 01:06:29 that's why one has (f x) inside it 2009 Mar 09 01:06:31 k 2009 Mar 09 01:06:38 and two has (f (f x)) inside it 2009 Mar 09 01:06:56 so if we look at the definition of add 2009 Mar 09 01:07:00 so two is applying the function twice, three is applying the function 3 times etc. 2009 Mar 09 01:07:06 yeah 2009 Mar 09 01:07:08 the number of f that encapsulate x represent the number no? 2009 Mar 09 01:07:15 yes 2009 Mar 09 01:07:16 yes 2009 Mar 09 01:07:22 k 2009 Mar 09 01:07:25 so if you look at add 2009 Mar 09 01:07:32 you have n and m 2009 Mar 09 01:07:42 each of these is a Church numeral 2009 Mar 09 01:08:02 so what we can do with it is give it a function as an argument 2009 Mar 09 01:08:27 and we have the function f 2009 Mar 09 01:08:53 so on the inside you have ((m f) ((n f) x)) 2009 Mar 09 01:09:11 that's taking n of f which is the repeated application of f n times 2009 Mar 09 01:09:19 and it's applying that to x 2009 Mar 09 01:09:49 Here's how I tested: (((plus two two) square) 3) 2009 Mar 09 01:10:02 and checking that against: (square (square (square (square 3)))) 2009 Mar 09 01:10:02 that's a good example 2009 Mar 09 01:10:08 yeah 2009 Mar 09 01:10:13 so if f is square and x is three 2009 Mar 09 01:10:36 and n is 2, you'd expect ((n f) x) to be 91 2009 Mar 09 01:10:39 er 81 2009 Mar 09 01:11:10 then you take m of f, and apply that to that result 2009 Mar 09 01:11:49 so you're adding my making sure you apply f a total of m + n times 2009 Mar 09 01:11:50 Anything more to add? 2009 Mar 09 01:11:57 and the rest of it is just threading the value through 2009 Mar 09 01:12:06 that's it 2009 Mar 09 01:12:18 did that make sense? 2009 Mar 09 01:12:24 ok, need to play with it a little more, but that helped 2009 Mar 09 01:12:27 ok, cool 2009 Mar 09 01:12:28 thanks! 2009 Mar 09 01:12:32 np 2009 Mar 09 01:12:39 2.7? 2009 Mar 09 01:12:50 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.7 2009 Mar 09 01:13:08 http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/be559f7e20b8ae1690008f5af6e488f74520ef1f/2.ss#L233 2009 Mar 09 01:13:26 2.8 2009 Mar 09 01:13:58 http://mibbit.com/pb/yIZ9l9 2009 Mar 09 01:13:59 oh yeah this one was trivial 2009 Mar 09 01:14:03 2.8 2009 Mar 09 01:14:14 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.8 2009 Mar 09 01:14:28 same here, all the same 2009 Mar 09 01:15:05 yep 2009 Mar 09 01:15:29 2.9 2009 Mar 09 01:15:31 my math skillz are poor 2009 Mar 09 01:15:35 this is what i did 2009 Mar 09 01:15:39 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.9 2009 Mar 09 01:15:39 http://pastebin.com/m416731f7 2009 Mar 09 01:15:54 http://mibbit.com/pb/SQr6aA 2009 Mar 09 01:19:08 aamar: yours and mine are the same again 2009 Mar 09 01:19:21 mariorz: yours basically gets to the "add" and "subtract" case. 2009 Mar 09 01:19:29 though I think your notation was a little better 2009 Mar 09 01:20:56 I don't understand what a and b are in mariorz's 2009 Mar 09 01:21:36 a b are the upper and lower-bounds of segment #2, I think. 2009 Mar 09 01:22:07 oohh 2009 Mar 09 01:22:42 ah, ok, I get it 2009 Mar 09 01:23:00 yea x and a are upper bounds 2009 Mar 09 01:23:06 yeah, seems to cover addition and subtraction (which are the same really) 2009 Mar 09 01:23:35 ok 2009 Mar 09 01:24:12 any questions on that one? 2009 Mar 09 01:24:45 im good 2009 Mar 09 01:25:23 2.10 -- http://mibbit.com/pb/nDiF0Y 2009 Mar 09 01:25:50 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.10 2009 Mar 09 01:26:36 Oh, it's a lot better to trap the 0s as well. 2009 Mar 09 01:27:18 Okay, so this one really just required adding one clause to the div-interval function. 2009 Mar 09 01:27:28 So I don't imagine there are a lot of questions on this one. 2009 Mar 09 01:27:35 yeah 2009 Mar 09 01:27:56 2.11 was one of the most difficult ones. 2009 Mar 09 01:28:21 this is as far as i got 2009 Mar 09 01:28:25 I guess "if the sum of the absolute values are greater than the absolute value of the sums" is equivalent to saying that the signs are different 2009 Mar 09 01:29:32 hm, I guess it's just aamar and I that got further? 2009 Mar 09 01:29:50 maybe chrisconley will come back as well 2009 Mar 09 01:29:51 maybe we should punt on the rest until next time? 2009 Mar 09 01:30:02 he might 2009 Mar 09 01:30:35 oh that was his solution I was looking at ,whoops 2009 Mar 09 01:31:01 Let's push forward to 2.16. 2009 Mar 09 01:31:11 We do have chrisconley's solution up here. 2009 Mar 09 01:31:23 ok 2009 Mar 09 01:31:25 yeah 2009 Mar 09 01:31:51 alright, 2.11 then 2009 Mar 09 01:32:30 oh yeah, this one 2009 Mar 09 01:32:36 Oh I actually looked at chrisconley's solution set -- he only got to 2.11! 2009 Mar 09 01:32:40 http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.11 2009 Mar 09 01:32:47 yeah, I just noticed that 2009 Mar 09 01:32:55 and his 2.11 isn't complete 2009 Mar 09 01:33:11 2.11 - http://mibbit.com/pb/OR1eeT 2009 Mar 09 01:34:27 damn 2009 Mar 09 01:34:38 that's almost character for character the same as mine 2009 Mar 09 01:34:44 that's uncanny 2009 Mar 09 01:35:14 strange 2009 Mar 09 01:35:17 we must be long-lost twins 2009 Mar 09 01:35:25 haha 2009 Mar 09 01:35:55 the only difference is you used ux where I used xu 2009 Mar 09 01:36:13 and I decided that ux would be better part way through but was too lazy to change it 2009 Mar 09 01:37:15 also I had defined positive? and negative? exactly as you have them 2009 Mar 09 01:37:42 but then I ended up pulling them out as it made it shorter 2009 Mar 09 01:38:13 yeah, it ends up not being so helpful for length or clarity 2009 Mar 09 01:38:20 but I did end up leaving them in 2009 Mar 09 01:38:38 yeah I think it's a kind of useful documentation actually 2009 Mar 09 01:39:15 makes the logic a little easier to follow 2009 Mar 09 01:39:41 I just went with what was shorter as I often do 2009 Mar 09 01:40:20 alright, I guess we'll get everyone else's 2.11 and the rest next time? 2009 Mar 09 01:41:02 Agreed. 2009 Mar 09 01:41:10 ok 2009 Mar 09 01:41:16 I think we got fewer people this time because we went to weekly, instead of bi-weekly. 2009 Mar 09 01:41:23 Maybe we should resume every 2 weeks. 2009 Mar 09 01:41:36 hm, good point 2009 Mar 09 01:42:18 I could go either way 2009 Mar 09 01:42:23 I.e. meet in 2 weeks and do 2.11 through 2.23 ? 2009 Mar 09 01:42:37 I managed to do a little ahead this week, and 2.2 is very, very long. 2009 Mar 09 01:42:41 -*- inimino looks up 2.23 2009 Mar 09 01:43:13 woo, I am so behind 2009 Mar 09 01:43:23 yes, bi-weekly would be good 2009 Mar 09 01:43:25 so that would be through 2.2.1 2009 Mar 09 01:43:32 yes 2009 Mar 09 01:44:11 i thik weekly meetings are good 2009 Mar 09 01:44:54 maybe next sun to 2.11 to 2.16 and week after that 2.17 2.23? 2009 Mar 09 01:45:33 I like the weekly meetings, but I'm willing to give it up if it's keeping people from attending 2009 Mar 09 01:45:34 I'm up for it either way. 2009 Mar 09 01:45:36 maybe we should ask the mailing list 2009 Mar 09 01:45:46 same here really 2009 Mar 09 01:45:46 agreed on the mailing list 2009 Mar 09 01:46:10 mariorz, you want to post something about it? 2009 Mar 09 01:46:23 -*- mariorz was about to go out 2009 Mar 09 01:46:26 s/post/email 2009 Mar 09 01:46:32 ok, np, I'll do it 2009 Mar 09 01:46:40 cool, if not i can do it when i get back 2009 Mar 09 01:46:51 ok, cool 2009 Mar 09 01:46:53 nah, I'll send something 2009 Mar 09 01:47:02 so next meeting TBD 2009 Mar 09 01:47:05 cool, so see you guys later 2009 Mar 09 01:47:12 and watch the mailing list :) 2009 Mar 09 01:47:19 later, all 2009 Mar 09 01:49:42 later