So it sounds like you don’t get the exact version you want because metadata is thrown away.

Curious, what is your software doing that it depends on specific metadata in your dependencies? What metadata do you require? Most files metadata is stuff like created timestamp, last edit timestamp, read/write/execute permissions..

I'm just trying to think of a case where metadata would be relevant in a dependency?

It's a checksum not the content itself

I think the law is wrong…

I definitely miss Darcs. I still use it very occasionally, but only with very small repos.

Did you read what this does? Because I get the feeling you didn’t…

This isn’t a library, you don’t include in your application, and it doesn’t try to replace an understanding of floating point issues on the programmers part.

Is this comment written by AI?

> This isn’t a library, you don’t include in your application, and it doesn’t try to replace an understanding of floating point issues on the programmers part.

If that were true, it would serve no purpose, since competently written floating-point expressions are already optimal, given the well-understood limitations of modern floating-point processing.

> Is this comment written by AI?

That's a non sequitur that resolves nothing, and a remark that would get you disqualified in a formal debate.

Ah -- I get it. In modern times, if someone composes coherent prose, and since no mere mortals can do that any more, the reply must have originated with AI.

A reply like yours leaves the originator in the position of needing to prove a negative, which is impossible, which is why it breaks the time-honored rules of formal debate.

I guess when you’ve been calling it that before everyone else you’re allowed. Sort of how Common Lisp calls threads ‘processes’.

As does Smalltalk and Erlang, and to make things more interesting, all three mean something not exactly the same.

> Sort of how Common Lisp calls threads ‘processes’.

Can you point to any documentation on that? It's not in the hyperspec and it doesn't seem to be in Common Lisp the Language, 2nd Edition (using the index)

Ha, I was going to say the exact opposite. My first thought was that the website was broken.

The scroll trigger was something I’ve seen and wanted to play around with, but I know it’s controversial so I added the toggle as well (upper left corner).

To be fair, the examples are extremely easy to overlook. They are also, to put it delicately, not the most helpful.

The examples are fine for an early-stage poc project like this one. `minutes` with evaluation trace and `[Fold]<-` are illustrative, and if you work them out with pen and paper, you can get a good grasp on the main ideas of the language. That you have to search for them on a page that looks like a slightly-formatted README instead of having a nice scrollable with syntax-highlighted snippets at the top is because this IS a slightly-formatted README - and that's also completely fine at this stage. What's important is that there are a few interesting concepts there and that it was published. Even if this one fizzles, as 99.999% of languages do, that doesn't matter if some other language down the line gets inspired by those concepts.

Absolutely agree. But fairness precludes denying the existence of examples.

They are not prominent, but they are in a section with the heading 'Examples'.

apparently fold example is very helpful to some.

That feels fundamentally broken. How can you expect an organisation to respond appropriately if you don’t provide them any kind of proof?

He had enough proof, his own students, who assumingly agreed. And in case the company still pretends there is no problem you could still crawl their entire user base...

Well my first testing of the waters was classified as a misdirected love letter.

It looks like there’s a download link that contains the source code. Presumably you untar it, follow any necessary build instructions, and then run it.