2009 Aug 02 23:56:57  <inimino> aamar, mariorz, you guys around?
2009 Aug 02 23:57:10  <inimino> (anyone else?)
2009 Aug 02 23:58:01  <aamar> hey inimino
2009 Aug 02 23:58:07  <inimino> hey aamar
2009 Aug 03 00:03:02  <mariorz> sup
2009 Aug 03 00:03:33  <inimino> hey
2009 Aug 03 00:03:51  <mariorz> barely finished i think
2009 Aug 03 00:04:21  <inimino> I finished about a half hour ago
2009 Aug 03 00:04:32  <inimino> this section was long
2009 Aug 03 00:04:52  <mariorz> indeed
2009 Aug 03 00:05:44  <mariorz> so should we start?
2009 Aug 03 00:05:58  <inimino> sure
2009 Aug 03 00:06:04  <inimino> 3.24?
2009 Aug 03 00:06:10  <mariorz> hey inimino, offtopic, have you played with bespin?
2009 Aug 03 00:06:51  <inimino> a little bit, yeah, when it came out
2009 Aug 03 00:07:49  <mariorz> looks interesting will try and install it locally later
2009 Aug 03 00:07:57  <mariorz> http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L717
2009 Aug 03 00:08:23  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.24
2009 Aug 03 00:08:56  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L593-624
2009 Aug 03 00:09:28  <mariorz> same all around
2009 Aug 03 00:10:20  <inimino> these look the same, yeah
2009 Aug 03 00:10:23  <aamar> ok
2009 Aug 03 00:10:25  <inimino> 3.25?
2009 Aug 03 00:10:41  <mariorz> http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L767
2009 Aug 03 00:10:52  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.25
2009 Aug 03 00:10:55  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L626-657
2009 Aug 03 00:13:40  <mariorz> mine doesnt work
2009 Aug 03 00:14:20  <mariorz> just moved on
2009 Aug 03 00:16:33  <inimino> it looks about right
2009 Aug 03 00:16:42  <aamar> inimino -- will yours always return nil?
2009 Aug 03 00:16:56  <mariorz> sigh
2009 Aug 03 00:17:02  <mariorz> have to go guys
2009 Aug 03 00:17:04  <aamar> since you have a construct like (if x (recur) x)
2009 Aug 03 00:17:18  <mariorz> ill catch up with the logs
2009 Aug 03 00:17:22  <aamar> :(
2009 Aug 03 00:17:37  <inimino> :(
2009 Aug 03 00:17:41  <mariorz> :(
2009 Aug 03 00:17:48  <paragon24> oh hell why not
2009 Aug 03 00:17:49  <paragon24> :(
2009 Aug 03 00:18:15  <inimino> alright mariorz see you next time
2009 Aug 03 00:18:54  <inimino> aamar: I don't think so
2009 Aug 03 00:18:58  <aamar> catch you in a couple weeks, mariorz
2009 Aug 03 00:19:11  <mariorz> sure guys, sorry to miss it, unforseen airport trip
2009 Aug 03 00:19:20  <mariorz> 3.4 in 2 weeks i presume?
2009 Aug 03 00:19:29  <inimino> yeah, sounds good to me
2009 Aug 03 00:19:52  <mariorz> allright laters!
2009 Aug 03 00:20:00  <inimino> later
2009 Aug 03 00:20:44  <inimino> aamar: it shouldn't, because eventually the path will be empty and it won't reach that
2009 Aug 03 00:21:06  <inimino> (or it will return #f at some point)
2009 Aug 03 00:21:13  <aamar> inimino -- i see it now
2009 Aug 03 00:21:59  <inimino> reading yours now
2009 Aug 03 00:22:24  <aamar> Yes, I expect that will work.
2009 Aug 03 00:23:41  <inimino> yours looks good
2009 Aug 03 00:24:24  <inimino> make-branch is more explicit than the way that happens in mine
2009 Aug 03 00:27:33  <inimino> very similar though
2009 Aug 03 00:28:14  <inimino> alright, anything more on this one?
2009 Aug 03 00:28:30  <aamar> no, let's go on to 3.26
2009 Aug 03 00:28:35  <inimino> alright
2009 Aug 03 00:28:46  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.26
2009 Aug 03 00:29:40  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L659-669
2009 Aug 03 00:30:08  <inimino> similar idea...
2009 Aug 03 00:30:14  -=- rudybot_ is now known as rudybot
2009 Aug 03 00:30:18  <inimino> I wasn't really sure what they were asking for here
2009 Aug 03 00:30:25  <inimino> seemed like kind of a vague question
2009 Aug 03 00:31:07  <aamar> looks like we have the same answer
2009 Aug 03 00:31:13  <aamar> each node is a list of 4 items
2009 Aug 03 00:31:19  <aamar> key, value, left, right
2009 Aug 03 00:31:28  <inimino> yeah
2009 Aug 03 00:31:45  <inimino> alright, next one?
2009 Aug 03 00:32:00  <aamar> okay to move on to 3.27?
2009 Aug 03 00:32:04  <inimino> sure
2009 Aug 03 00:32:10  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.27
2009 Aug 03 00:33:10  <inimino> here is mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L875
2009 Aug 03 00:34:08  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L671-686
2009 Aug 03 00:37:36  <inimino> looks the same
2009 Aug 03 00:37:37  <aamar> still not convinced I'm drawing the Environment diagrams correctly, but I feel I do understand what is going on conceptually.
2009 Aug 03 00:37:46  <aamar> I think we agree on how it works.
2009 Aug 03 00:37:54  <aamar> Is that Haskell code at the bottom of yours?
2009 Aug 03 00:37:58  <inimino> yeah I'm not sure about how to draw those exactly
2009 Aug 03 00:38:00  <inimino> yeah
2009 Aug 03 00:38:08  <inimino> really cool how that works, actually
2009 Aug 03 00:38:34  <inimino> it's like the memoized version, but seeded with 0 and 1.
2009 Aug 03 00:39:04  <aamar> yes, that's interesting... thinking about picking up a book on Haskell
2009 Aug 03 00:39:10  <inimino> fibs is an infinite list that's generated as needed
2009 Aug 03 00:39:38  <inimino> it's a fun language
2009 Aug 03 00:39:56  <aamar> and it memoizes as it goes, i.e. computes as much of the list as needed and retains them in the stack?
2009 Aug 03 00:40:15  <aamar> interesting...
2009 Aug 03 00:40:24  <inimino> because it's lazy, the list is computed as needed, yeah
2009 Aug 03 00:40:44  <inimino> and once computed doesn't need to be recomputed
2009 Aug 03 00:40:57  <aamar> ok, next we start on all these circuit-logic problems
2009 Aug 03 00:41:04  <inimino> yeah
2009 Aug 03 00:41:45  <inimino> I enjoyed these
2009 Aug 03 00:42:14  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.28
2009 Aug 03 00:43:00  <aamar> Yes, I liked working through these.
2009 Aug 03 00:43:01  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L688-703
2009 Aug 03 00:43:14  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L955
2009 Aug 03 00:43:46  <aamar> same
2009 Aug 03 00:44:01  <inimino> these seem to be identical yes
2009 Aug 03 00:44:08  <inimino> 3.29?
2009 Aug 03 00:44:36  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L688-703
2009 Aug 03 00:44:40  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.29
2009 Aug 03 00:45:03  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L969
2009 Aug 03 00:45:48  <inimino> mariorz added a procedure and two add-action! calls I didn't have
2009 Aug 03 00:46:05  <aamar> you and I both forgot the add-action! calls -- mariorz remembered
2009 Aug 03 00:46:45  <inimino> are they needed?
2009 Aug 03 00:47:21  <inimino> I would have thought the inverter and and-gate procedures would have taken care of it
2009 Aug 03 00:47:23  <aamar> not sure...
2009 Aug 03 00:47:35  <aamar> yes, you're right
2009 Aug 03 00:47:47  <aamar> they're not needed when you're constructing this out of other gates
2009 Aug 03 00:47:51  <inimino> though I admit I got confused about where the lines were between some parts of this particular system...
2009 Aug 03 00:48:14  <inimino> agreed
2009 Aug 03 00:48:32  <inimino> and we agreed on the delay
2009 Aug 03 00:48:35  <inimino> next one?
2009 Aug 03 00:48:36  <aamar> yes
2009 Aug 03 00:48:38  <aamar> ok
2009 Aug 03 00:49:02  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L716-731
2009 Aug 03 00:49:25  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.30
2009 Aug 03 00:49:59  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L989
2009 Aug 03 00:51:54  <inimino> I think you and I have the same answer for the delay on this one
2009 Aug 03 00:52:20  <aamar> you and I got the same answer for delay time for half-adder, but different answers for full adder, I think.
2009 Aug 03 00:52:36  <aamar> my syntax is abysmal, sorry about that
2009 Aug 03 00:52:44  <inimino> oh, I'll look closer
2009 Aug 03 00:54:09  <inimino> hm
2009 Aug 03 00:54:16  <aamar> my answer for full adder delay on "S" output = 2A + 2 * max(A+I,O)
2009 Aug 03 00:54:50  <inimino> ah
2009 Aug 03 00:55:10  <aamar> and full adder delay on "C" output = 2A + max(A+I,O) + O
2009 Aug 03 00:55:59  <inimino> oh, hm
2009 Aug 03 00:56:16  <inimino> I seem to have oversimplified this one
2009 Aug 03 00:56:46  <inimino> I think I treated the half-adder as only having one delay
2009 Aug 03 00:57:03  <inimino> instead of considering the outputs separately
2009 Aug 03 00:58:28  <inimino> so everything after that in mine is wrong
2009 Aug 03 00:58:44  <inimino> yours looks like it might be more correct, now that I'm reading it properly
2009 Aug 03 00:59:18  <inimino> I'll have to go back and rework that one
2009 Aug 03 00:59:32  <aamar> I'm not that confident that my answer is right, because it does get a little hairy.
2009 Aug 03 00:59:53  <aamar> okay, let me know if you get a different answer sometime!
2009 Aug 03 01:00:41  <inimino> alright, we can look at it next time
2009 Aug 03 01:00:47  <inimino> mariorz and I seem to have the same code
2009 Aug 03 01:01:00  <inimino> except for doing the steps in a different order
2009 Aug 03 01:02:15  <aamar> I seem to have missed out on that part of the problem altogether...
2009 Aug 03 01:02:33  <aamar> but your answers look like they agree
2009 Aug 03 01:02:44  <inimino> yeah
2009 Aug 03 01:03:06  <inimino> alright, 3.31?
2009 Aug 03 01:03:24  <aamar> yes
2009 Aug 03 01:03:31  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L733-737
2009 Aug 03 01:03:51  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.31
2009 Aug 03 01:05:07  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L1150
2009 Aug 03 01:06:06  <inimino> yours and mariorz's answers are the same but I'm not quite sure if it agrees with mine or not
2009 Aug 03 01:06:21  -*- aamar thinks
2009 Aug 03 01:10:26  <aamar> For example, creating a half-adder circuit and then setting the A input to 1 would not change the output of the inverter (E in figure 3.25), since the input to the inverter would still be 0.
2009 Aug 03 01:10:35  <inimino> exactly
2009 Aug 03 01:10:47  <inimino> oh I wrote that :/
2009 Aug 03 01:10:49  <aamar> I'm not sure I agree with that point yet, in your answer.
2009 Aug 03 01:10:55  -*- inimino blushes
2009 Aug 03 01:10:58  <inimino> ok
2009 Aug 03 01:11:04  <aamar> Can you explain why it wouldn't propagate, if A were set to 1?
2009 Aug 03 01:11:12  <inimino> ok I'll try
2009 Aug 03 01:12:37  <inimino> ok, when the half-adder was set up, the inverter was set up on wires C and E (in that same figure)
2009 Aug 03 01:13:34  <inimino> this means that an action was attached to wire E, but it wasn't run yet, because the procedure isn't being imediately applied anymore
2009 Aug 03 01:14:01  <inimino> so the value on E is still 0
2009 Aug 03 01:14:33  <inimino> and the input on C to the inverter is also still 0, since only A changed (and C is coming out of the and-gate)
2009 Aug 03 01:14:56  <inimino> since the inverter input is the same, the procedure won't be run now either
2009 Aug 03 01:15:33  <inimino> so E will still be set to 0 and the output of the half-adder will be wrong even after we set the A input.
2009 Aug 03 01:15:47  <aamar> but once A is changed, that would trigger the and-gate change, wouldn't it?
2009 Aug 03 01:16:31  <aamar> as soon as that change is triggered then everything else would also be triggered ?
2009 Aug 03 01:16:35  <inimino> yes, but the action attached to wire C will only run if the input value changed
2009 Aug 03 01:17:32  <inimino> that's in make-wire
2009 Aug 03 01:17:35  <inimino>       (if (not (= signal-value new-value))
2009 Aug 03 01:17:35  <inimino>           (begin (set! signal-value new-value)
2009 Aug 03 01:17:37  <inimino>                  (call-each action-procedures))
2009 Aug 03 01:17:50  <aamar> and that value would only trigger if A's actions were triggered
2009 Aug 03 01:18:17  <aamar> So the point is, it goes back to whether or not A's actions are triggered initially.
2009 Aug 03 01:18:22  <inimino> so actually it's in the and-gate where the propagation will stop
2009 Aug 03 01:19:15  <inimino> basically
2009 Aug 03 01:19:19  <inimino> wires start at 0
2009 Aug 03 01:19:26  <inimino> so when you hook everything up...
2009 Aug 03 01:19:32  <inimino> all the wires are still at 0
2009 Aug 03 01:19:45  <inimino> including the ones before and after the inverter
2009 Aug 03 01:20:01  <aamar> ok that's fine
2009 Aug 03 01:20:03  <inimino> unless you run the procedure when you attach it to the wire
2009 Aug 03 01:20:08  <aamar> if you set A to 1
2009 Aug 03 01:20:34  <inimino> then if you set A to 1, the and gate output is still 0
2009 Aug 03 01:20:59  <aamar> Once you set A to 1, you do think that will trigger the And gate to operate, right?
2009 Aug 03 01:21:08  -*- inimino thinks
2009 Aug 03 01:21:40  <inimino> partly, yes
2009 Aug 03 01:22:06  <inimino> but it won't trigger the inverter to do anything, because of that equality test in make-wire
2009 Aug 03 01:22:24  <aamar> oh I see
2009 Aug 03 01:22:31  <inimino> (= (signal-value new-value)) will be true
2009 Aug 03 01:22:42  <inimino> so the inverter will happily sit there with 0 input and 0 output
2009 Aug 03 01:22:43  <aamar> The point is that B won't be propagated into the and-gate
2009 Aug 03 01:22:47  <aamar> Is that right?
2009 Aug 03 01:23:41  <inimino> well B is still 0, so even if it was, the inverter would still be in an inconsistent state
2009 Aug 03 01:23:45  <aamar> Oh ok.
2009 Aug 03 01:24:35  <inimino> so the system would sort of work in that if you 'flushed' everything through one time, it would continue to propagate correctly after that
2009 Aug 03 01:25:47  <inimino> but getting everything going the first time would be hard
2009 Aug 03 01:25:49  <aamar> Okay, got it
2009 Aug 03 01:25:57  <inimino> alright
2009 Aug 03 01:27:32  <aamar> So we conceptually agree that the problem is setting up the initial states, but we have identified different failure points; perhaps both are right.
2009 Aug 03 01:28:08  <inimino> yes I think both are partly right
2009 Aug 03 01:29:06  <inimino> if you think about it more and have further insight that I missed let me know because it was a hard problem I thought
2009 Aug 03 01:29:27  <aamar> ok, will do
2009 Aug 03 01:29:40  <inimino> ok, next one?
2009 Aug 03 01:29:43  <aamar> lots of reading about logic circuits, not many exercises
2009 Aug 03 01:29:49  <aamar> 3.32?
2009 Aug 03 01:30:38  <inimino> yes
2009 Aug 03 01:30:41  <inimino> ok
2009 Aug 03 01:30:49  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.32
2009 Aug 03 01:33:40  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L739-749
2009 Aug 03 01:34:13  <aamar> our answers agree
2009 Aug 03 01:34:14  <inimino> seems to be the same answer
2009 Aug 03 01:34:19  <inimino> yep
2009 Aug 03 01:34:29  <inimino> alright, next one?
2009 Aug 03 01:35:11  <aamar> ok
2009 Aug 03 01:35:22  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/98b4b565a3363d8ed9a70a1e1ca64ed7f9f7343e/ch3-outline.scm#L739-749
2009 Aug 03 01:35:22  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.33
2009 Aug 03 01:35:54  <aamar> ha, mine is very wrong
2009 Aug 03 01:35:55  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L1452
2009 Aug 03 01:37:20  <inimino> mariorz's and mine agree, yours is similar
2009 Aug 03 01:37:47  <inimino> except it looks like you forgot to use constant
2009 Aug 03 01:39:09  <aamar> I definitely did forget to use that.
2009 Aug 03 01:39:17  <aamar> Okay, I'll fix that...
2009 Aug 03 01:39:29  <inimino> ok
2009 Aug 03 01:40:42  <aamar> ok, got a bit further
2009 Aug 03 01:40:45  <aamar> 3.34 ?
2009 Aug 03 01:40:49  <inimino> sure
2009 Aug 03 01:41:02  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.34
2009 Aug 03 01:41:08  <aamar> a little slowness on github...
2009 Aug 03 01:41:09  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/1714e6508e50bc9fd6756e439a1b634dbfb65b88/ch3-outline.scm#L765-769
2009 Aug 03 01:41:51  <aamar> all agreed
2009 Aug 03 01:42:47  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L1470
2009 Aug 03 01:43:02  <inimino> yep, these look the same
2009 Aug 03 01:43:28  <inimino> 3.35?
2009 Aug 03 01:43:38  <aamar> ok
2009 Aug 03 01:43:44  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.35
2009 Aug 03 01:43:55  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L1487
2009 Aug 03 01:44:01  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/1714e6508e50bc9fd6756e439a1b634dbfb65b88/ch3-outline.scm#L771-798
2009 Aug 03 01:44:55  <inimino> hm, I needed to add a test for (has-value? a)
2009 Aug 03 01:45:04  <aamar> some minor differences...
2009 Aug 03 01:45:09  <aamar> I forgot to use get-value
2009 Aug 03 01:45:21  <aamar> I think you forgot it in the (square a) call...
2009 Aug 03 01:45:37  <aamar> Also, you don't have a process-new-value call at the end of process-forget-value, which I think you need.
2009 Aug 03 01:46:42  <inimino> hm, probably
2009 Aug 03 01:47:42  <inimino> I wasn't sure about that, but I guess that's right
2009 Aug 03 01:48:17  <inimino> I wasn't sure if it would ever have both inputs set at the same time
2009 Aug 03 01:48:32  <inimino> but that could happen as an error and then you'd want to fix it and recover
2009 Aug 03 01:49:31  <inimino> mariorz left off the process-new-value there also
2009 Aug 03 01:49:57  <aamar> what about the case if neither is set?
2009 Aug 03 01:51:03  <aamar> probably should not call set-value! on b in that case.
2009 Aug 03 01:51:27  <inimino> if neither is set then process-new-value would never be called
2009 Aug 03 01:51:35  <inimino> (unless something else is broken)
2009 Aug 03 01:52:10  <inimino> basically a connecter would have to send 'I-have-a-value when it doesn't actually have a value, I think
2009 Aug 03 01:52:12  <aamar> true, ok
2009 Aug 03 01:52:47  <aamar> although in my code, you could call forget-value on all, which would trigger a call to process-new-value
2009 Aug 03 01:53:31  <inimino> hm, true
2009 Aug 03 01:53:59  <inimino> I guess the question here is what are the acceptable states for the connectors we are connected to to be in
2009 Aug 03 01:54:09  <inimino> and what are the possible state transitions
2009 Aug 03 01:54:31  <inimino> I wasn't quite sure what those were supposed to be in this section
2009 Aug 03 01:54:53  <inimino> perhaps because I didn't spend enough time on it
2009 Aug 03 01:56:17  <aamar> I didn't actually try out any of this code to see if it would work... not clear how many edge cases to handle.
2009 Aug 03 01:56:30  <aamar> Let's go forward to last few?
2009 Aug 03 01:56:31  <inimino> neither did I
2009 Aug 03 01:56:32  <inimino> sure
2009 Aug 03 01:57:01  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.36.svg
2009 Aug 03 01:58:04  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/36612f8644dac89c8e6ea5fc63415639855475a9/ch3-outline.scm#L800-836
2009 Aug 03 01:58:17  <aamar> I agree with your diagram for 3.36
2009 Aug 03 01:58:34  <aamar> I should have drawn an additional box for set-my-value, missed that
2009 Aug 03 01:59:22  <inimino> ok, looks mainly the same
2009 Aug 03 01:59:34  <inimino> here's mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L1516
2009 Aug 03 01:59:54  <inimino> also quite similar and has the same explanation as yours
2009 Aug 03 02:00:01  <aamar> partial diagram
2009 Aug 03 02:00:17  <aamar> yes
2009 Aug 03 02:00:18  <inimino> (nothing will happen, which I should have also pointed out)
2009 Aug 03 02:00:23  <aamar> okay, 3.37 was fairly easy
2009 Aug 03 02:00:45  <aamar> http://github.com/aalearn/aalearn-sicp/blob/36612f8644dac89c8e6ea5fc63415639855475a9/ch3-outline.scm#L817-836
2009 Aug 03 02:00:48  <inimino> yeah
2009 Aug 03 02:00:49  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_3/3.37
2009 Aug 03 02:01:07  <inimino> mariorz's: http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/1d08d2f0a431c1891ad7965e30d19fd0f9baa76b/3.ss#L1539
2009 Aug 03 02:01:12  <aamar> same answers
2009 Aug 03 02:01:57  <aamar> mariorz missed cv, otherwise we all have exactly the same
2009 Aug 03 02:02:19  <aamar> okay, good session
2009 Aug 03 02:02:22  <aamar> gotta run...
2009 Aug 03 02:02:27  <inimino> alright
2009 Aug 03 02:02:27  <aamar> all of 3.4 for next time, right?
2009 Aug 03 02:02:34  <inimino> sure, lets go for it
2009 Aug 03 02:02:51  <inimino> good meeting, see you in two weeks :-)
2009 Aug 03 02:02:53  <aamar> great, talk to you pretty soon