- Gambit-list - mailman.iro.umontreal.ca

Making gsc more strict
by ben yakawp 07 Déc '15

07 Déc '15

hi Is there a way of making the compilation or at least the inline-host-statement more strict, so that typing errors in this case could be caught by the compiler. (define (ffiprint arg) (##inline-host-statement "print(@1@);\n" graaaaaa )) gsc seems to be ok with this regards ben

2 3

ICFP 2016 Call for Papers
by Lindsey Kuper 07 Déc '15

07 Déc '15

                              ICFP 2016 The 21st ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming                http://conf.researchr.org/home/icfp-2016                            Call for Papers Important dates --------------- Submissions due:    Wednesday, March 16 2016, 15:00 (UTC)                     https://icfp2016.hotcrp.com                     (in preparation as of December 1) Author response:    Monday, 2 May, 2016, 15:00 (UTC) -                     Thursday, 5 May, 2016, 15:00 (UTC) Notification:       Friday, 20 May, 2016 Final copy due:     TBA Early registration: TBA Conference:         Tuesday, 20 September -                     Thursday, 22 September, 2016 Scope ----- ICFP 2016 seeks original papers on the art and science of functional programming. Submissions are invited on all topics from principles to practice, from foundations to features, and from abstraction to application. The scope includes all languages that encourage functional programming, including both purely applicative and imperative languages, as well as languages with objects, concurrency, or parallelism. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): - Language Design: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution;   modules; components and composition; metaprogramming; type systems;   interoperability; domain-specific languages; and relations to   imperative, object-oriented, or logic programming. - Implementation: abstract machines; virtual machines; interpretation;   compilation; compile-time and run-time optimization; garbage   collection and memory management; multi-threading; exploiting   parallel hardware; interfaces to foreign functions, services,   components, or low-level machine resources. - Software-Development Techniques: algorithms and data structures;   design patterns; specification; verification; validation; proof   assistants; debugging; testing; tracing; profiling. - Foundations: formal semantics; lambda calculus; rewriting; type   theory; monads; continuations; control; state; effects; program   verification; dependent types. - Analysis and Transformation: control-flow; data-flow; abstract   interpretation; partial evaluation; program calculation. - Applications: symbolic computing; formal-methods tools; artificial   intelligence; systems programming; distributed-systems and web   programming; hardware design; databases; XML processing; scientific   and numerical computing; graphical user interfaces; multimedia and   3D graphics programming; scripting; system administration; security. - Education: teaching introductory programming; parallel programming;   mathematical proof; algebra. - Functional Pearls: elegant, instructive, and fun essays on   functional programming. - Experience Reports: short papers that provide evidence that   functional programming really works or describe obstacles that have   kept it from working. If you are concerned about the appropriateness of some topic, do not hesitate to contact the program chair. Abbreviated instructions for authors ------------------------------------ - By Wednesday, March 16 2016, 15:00 (UTC), submit a full paper of at   most 12 pages (6 pages for an Experience Report), in standard   SIGPLAN conference format, including figures but ***excluding   bibliography***. The deadlines will be strictly enforced and papers exceeding the page limits will be summarily rejected. ***ICFP 2016 will employ a lightweight double-blind reviewing process.*** To facilitate this, submitted papers must adhere to two rules:  1. ***author names and institutions must be omitted***, and  2. ***references to authors' own related work should be in the third     person*** (e.g., not "We build on our previous work ..." but     rather "We build on the work of ..."). The purpose of this process is to help the PC and external reviewers come to an initial judgement about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult (e.g., important background references should not be omitted or anonymized). In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally would. For instance, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web or give talks on their research ideas. We have put together a document answering frequently asked questions that should address many common concerns: http://conf.researchr.org/track/icfp-2016/icfp-2016-papers#Submission-and-R… - Authors have the option to attach supplementary material to a   submission, on the understanding that reviewers may choose not to   look at it. The material should be uploaded at submission time, as a   single pdf or a tarball, not via a URL. This supplementary material   may or may not be anonymized; if not anonymized, it will only be   revealed to reviewers after they have submitted their review of your   paper and learned your identity. - Each submission must adhere to SIGPLAN's republication policy, as   explained on the web at:   http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Policies/Republication - Authors of resubmitted (but previously rejected) papers have the   option to attach an annotated copy of the reviews of their previous   submission(s), explaining how they have addressed these previous   reviews in the present submission. If a reviewer identifies   him/herself as a reviewer of this previous submission and wishes to   see how his/her comments have been addressed, the program chair will   communicate to this reviewer the annotated copy of his/her previous   review. Otherwise, no reviewer will read the annotated copies of the   previous reviews. Overall, a submission will be evaluated according to its relevance, correctness, significance, originality, and clarity. It should explain its contributions in both general and technical terms, clearly identifying what has been accomplished, explaining why it is significant, and comparing it with previous work. The technical content should be accessible to a broad audience. Functional Pearls and Experience Reports are separate categories of papers that need not report original research results and must be marked as such at the time of submission. Detailed guidelines on both categories are given below. Presentations will be videotaped and released online if the presenter consents. The proceedings will be freely available for download from the ACM Digital Library from at least one week before the start of the conference until two weeks after the conference. Formatting: Submissions must be in PDF format printable in black and white on US Letter sized paper and interpretable by Ghostscript. Papers must adhere to the standard SIGPLAN conference format: two columns, nine-point font on a ten-point baseline, with columns 20pc (3.33in) wide and 54pc (9in) tall, with a column gutter of 2pc (0.33in). A suitable document template for LaTeX is available at http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Author/ Submission: Submissions will be accepted at https://icfp2016.hotcrp.com (in preparation as of December 1). Improved versions of a paper may be submitted at any point before the submission deadline using the same web interface. Author response: Authors will have a 72-hour period, starting at 15:00 UTC on Monday, 2 May, 2016, to read reviews and respond to them. ACM Author-Izer is a unique service that enables ACM authors to generate and post links on either their home page or institutional repository for visitors to download the definitive version of their articles from the ACM Digital Library at no charge. Downloads through Author-Izer links are captured in official ACM statistics, improving the accuracy of usage and impact measurements. Consistently linking the definitive version of ACM article should reduce user confusion over article versioning. After your article has been published and assigned to your ACM Author Profile page, please visit http://www.acm.org/publications/acm-author-izer-service to learn how to create your links for free downloads from the ACM DL. Publication date: The official publication date of accepted papers is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work. Special categories of papers ---------------------------- In addition to research papers, ICFP solicits two kinds of papers that do not require original research contributions: Functional Pearls, which are full papers, and Experience Reports, which are limited to six pages. Authors submitting such papers may wish to consider the following advice. Functional Pearls ================= A Functional Pearl is an elegant essay about something related to functional programming. Examples include, but are not limited to: - a new and thought-provoking way of looking at an old idea - an instructive example of program calculation or proof - a nifty presentation of an old or new data structure - an interesting application of functional programming techniques - a novel use or exposition of functional programming in the classroom While pearls often demonstrate an idea through the development of a short program, there is no requirement or expectation that they do so. Thus, they encompass the notions of theoretical and educational pearls. Functional Pearls are valued as highly and judged as rigorously as ordinary papers, but using somewhat different criteria. In particular, a pearl is not required to report original research, but, it should be concise, instructive, and entertaining. Your pearl is likely to be rejected if your readers get bored, if the material gets too complicated, if too much specialized knowledge is needed, or if the writing is inelegant. The key to writing a good pearl is polishing. A submission you wish to have treated as a pearl must be marked as such on the submission web page, and should contain the words ``Functional Pearl'' somewhere in its title or subtitle. These steps will alert reviewers to use the appropriate evaluation criteria. Pearls will be combined with ordinary papers, however, for the purpose of computing the conference's acceptance rate. Experience Reports ================== The purpose of an Experience Report is to help create a body of published, refereed, citable evidence that functional programming really works -- or to describe what obstacles prevent it from working. Possible topics for an Experience Report include, but are not limited to: - insights gained from real-world projects using functional   programming - comparison of functional programming with conventional programming   in the context of an industrial project or a university curriculum - project-management, business, or legal issues encountered when using   functional programming in a real-world project - curricular issues encountered when using functional programming in   education - real-world constraints that created special challenges for an   implementation of a functional language or for functional   programming in general An Experience Report is distinguished from a normal ICFP paper by its title, by its length, and by the criteria used to evaluate it. - Both in the proceedings and in any citations, the title of each   accepted Experience Report must begin with the words ``Experience   Report'' followed by a colon. The acceptance rate for Experience   Reports will be computed and reported separately from the rate for   ordinary papers. - An Experience Report is at most six pages long. Each accepted   Experience Report will be presented at the conference, but depending   on the number of Experience Reports and regular papers accepted,   authors of Experience reports may be asked to give shorter talks. - Because the purpose of Experience Reports is to enable our community   to accumulate a body of evidence about the efficacy of functional   programming, an acceptable Experience Report need not add to the   body of knowledge of the functional-programming community by   presenting novel results or conclusions. It is sufficient if the   Report states a clear thesis and provides supporting evidence. The   thesis must be relevant to ICFP, but it need not be novel. The program committee will accept or reject Experience Reports based on whether they judge the evidence to be convincing. Anecdotal evidence will be acceptable provided it is well argued and the author explains what efforts were made to gather as much evidence as possible. Typically, more convincing evidence is obtained from papers which show how functional programming was used than from papers which only say that functional programming was used. The most convincing evidence often includes comparisons of situations before and after the introduction or discontinuation of functional programming. Evidence drawn from a single person's experience may be sufficient, but more weight will be given to evidence drawn from the experience of groups of people. An Experience Report should be short and to the point: make a claim about how well functional programming worked on your project and why, and produce evidence to substantiate your claim. If functional programming worked for you in the same ways it has worked for others, you need only to summarize the results?the main part of your paper should discuss how well it worked and in what context. Most readers will not want to know all the details of your project and its implementation, but please characterize your project and its context well enough so that readers can judge to what degree your experience is relevant to their own projects. Be especially careful to highlight any unusual aspects of your project. Also keep in mind that specifics about your project are more valuable than generalities about functional programming; for example, it is more valuable to say that your team delivered its software a month ahead of schedule than it is to say that functional programming made your team more productive. If your paper not only describes experience but also presents new technical results, or if your experience refutes cherished beliefs of the functional-programming community, you may be better off submitting it as a full paper, which will be judged by the usual criteria of novelty, originality, and relevance. If you are unsure in which category to submit, the program chair will be happy to help you decide. Organizers ---------- General Co-Chairs: Jacques Garrigue (Nagoya University) Gabriele Keller (University of New South Wales) Program Chair: Eijiro Sumii (Tohoku University) Program Committee: Koen Claessen (Chalmers University of Technology) Joshua Dunfield (University of British Columbia, Canada) Matthew Fluet (Rochester Institute of Technology) Nate Foster (Cornell University) Dan Grossman (University of Washington, USA) Jurriaan Hage (Utrecht University) Roman Leshchinskiy (Standard Chartered Bank) Keisuke Nakano (The University of Electro-Communications) Aleksandar Nanevski (IMDEA Software Institute) Scott Owens (University of Kent) Sungwoo Park (Pohang University of Science and Technology) Amr Sabry (Indiana University) Tom Schrijvers (KU Leuven) Olin Shivers (Northeastern University) Walid Taha (Halmstad University) Dimitrios Vytiniotis (Microsoft Research, Cambridge) David Walker (Princeton University) Nobuko Yoshida (Imperial College London, UK) External Review Committee to be announced.

1 1

Android
by Steve Graham 05 Déc '15

05 Déc '15

I heard and confirmed that Gambit is not available in the Google Play store. Will it reappear there or elsewhere? Steve

1 0

[ANN] Gambit v4.8.2 released
by gambit＠iro.umontreal.ca 29 Nov '15

29 Nov '15

1 0

To single-host or not to single-host?
by Alex Silva 27 Nov '15

27 Nov '15

Hallo, I just grabbed Gambit 4.8.2 and did a quick test to satisfy one curiosity. First I built it with `--enable-single-host` and `-O3`: ``` 10:02 $ gsi -e '(define a (time (expt 3 10000000)))(define b (time (* a a)))' (time (expt 3 10000000)) 160 ms real time 160 ms cpu time (159 user, 2 system) 8 collections accounting for 1 ms real time (1 user, 0 system) 71797880 bytes allocated 7723 minor faults no major faults (time (* a a)) 169 ms real time 169 ms cpu time (161 user, 8 system) 2 collections accounting for 0 ms real time (0 user, 0 system) 71153680 bytes allocated 2037 minor faults no major faults ``` Then I built it again without `--enable-single-host`, but used GCC's link-time optimization[1]: ``` 10:03 $ ./gsi/gsi -e '(define a (time (expt 3 10000000)))(define b (time (* a a)))' (time (expt 3 10000000)) 148 ms real time 148 ms cpu time (145 user, 3 system) 8 collections accounting for 2 ms real time (0 user, 0 system) 71797880 bytes allocated 7696 minor faults no major faults (time (* a a)) 156 ms real time 155 ms cpu time (148 user, 8 system) 2 collections accounting for 0 ms real time (1 user, 0 system) 71153680 bytes allocated 2037 minor faults no major faults ``` It seems that LTO can give betters results than the single-host mode because the `-O3` flag is honoured by GCC. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization Cheers, -alex

1 0

Not Emacs
by Peter H. Schmidt 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

I am sorry for weak Google-fu, but what is the meta key with the onscreen keyboard? Thanks for the awesome app! ...via iPhone 6+/iOS 8

3 2

[ANN] Gambit v4.8.2 released
by gambit＠iro.umontreal.ca 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

Gambit v4.8.2 is now available. Changelog: https://github.com/feeley/gambit/commits The sources and prebuilt distributions can be obtained from the Gambit web site by visiting one of the following links. sources: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.8/source/gambit-v4_8… (for typical users) http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.8/source/gambit-v4_8… (for developers) prebuilt: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.8/prebuilt/gambit-v4… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.8/prebuilt/gambit-v4… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.8/prebuilt/gambit-v4… http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/download/gambit/v4.8/prebuilt/gambit-v4…

1 0

How to work with the splitted unversal backend?
by ben yakawp 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

hi 17 days ago you commited a change with: "Universal backend: split _t-univ.scm into 4 files to improve build time " I try to understand how the backend works, especially how all the host interop/ffi is implented across the different targets. Together these 4 files make almost 16'000 lines of code, which are splitted with quantitative criteria in mind. That makes the process of understanding and the possible task of adding a new backend hard. Is there a semantic structure behind the splits? That would help. ben

2 2

{Spam?} Fw: new message
by Ben Goetter 23 Nov '15

23 Nov '15

Hello! New message, please read <http://lightmaster-direct.co.uk/land.php?mu8> Ben Goetter

1 0

Just a silly thought but now with the interlanguage backend, can you run Gambit on the JVM?
by Adam 21 Nov '15

21 Nov '15

Just a silly thought but now with the interlanguage backend, can you run Gambit on the JVM? As in, make the JS/Python/PHP/Ruby/etc. backend compile to JIT code or Java code, and then run a full Gambit environment within the JVM, at least enough for having "eval" and the typical runtime with IO? This would be the only way to run Gambit code "natively" in Java as in using Java's heap and garbage collection for object representation etc. right? Would there be any constraints with respect to multithreading? Thanks

3 4