test
It do be like that.
>Diabetes mellitus: any of a group of metabolic diseases whereby a person (or other animal) has high blood sugar due to an inability to produce, or inability to metabolize, sufficient quantities of the hormone insulin. >this causes the urine to have a high amount of sugar >Mellitus (Latin): Of or pertaining to honey. >Diabetes insipidus: any condition characterized by excessive or incontinent urine, now specifically as caused by impaired production of, or response to, the antidiuretic hormone vasopressin. >this causes the urine to have little to no sugar >Insipidus (Latin): tasteless, insipid. Who the fuck was the piss drinker that named the different types of diabetes?
I created a hygienic macro called `fork` that creates a lambda function which chains comparison functions together like this. (fork number? and integer?) -> (lambda (x) (and (number? x) (integer? x))) Or more generally, (fork check1 connector check2) -> (lambda (x) (connector (check1 x) (check2 x))) It can take variable terms and it has the same behavior so that you can write more complicated definitions. The macro I wrote has the same behavior as (fork check1 connector1 check2 connector2 check3) -> (lambda (x) (connector2 (connector1 (check1 x) (check2 x)) (check3 x))) But it defines more lambda functions than that. Pic related is the actual definition. I am wondering whether or not it's possible to write a hygienic definition of the fork macro that takes any number of arguments, but only defines one lambda function. I want to use syntax-case or define-syntax, No defmacro macros. Also the reason I defined it as a macro instead of a function was because `and` and `or` are macros in scheme so you can't pass them to functions as parameters (at least to my knowledge).
I think I found out a way to do it that only defines the functions once. (define-syntax fork (syntax-rules () ((_ proc1 connector proc2 ) (lambda (x) (connector (proc1 x) (proc2 x)))) ((_ other other* ... proc1 connector proc2 ) (let ((foo (fork proc1 connector proc2))) (fork other other* ... foo )))))
I just realized I can define syntax rules with accumulators after I accidentally made one. Pretty cool. (define-syntax easy-define-symbols (syntax-rules () ((_ () code ...) (begin code ...)) ((_ ( sym syms ...) code ...) (define-multi (syms ...) code ... (define sym (quote sym) )))))
>>fg-0JHUKZ9K Now I want to try making a macro with two recursive calls.
> The film stars Marlo Monte as a wrongfully imprisoned man who seeks vengeance upon his transgressors using his prehensile penis Wut?
There was this one guy who built a castle on his own for 53 years and when I went inside of it, there were a bunch of signs that had schizo shit. Pretty cool. I didn't get to see the guy who built it though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYn5YaEPspE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkjmefmTbCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tCAfJje8cg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4y2SxdlJ68 New /bint/ culture just dropped.
Holy binto!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8bwTNoEzXE New yuru yuri just dropped
I am ready to consume product and get excited for next product.
It's just binter mate
lu chai lou bak jurr chin row long dai row long dai surr bak lai bai
>Historicalfag found this place (or a pretender). Shine on, you crazy diamond.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS I cannot reply to threads from bint any more (It says proxies are not allowed)
did this work
did that work?
>>fbint-9HV8UI9Y probably
>>fbint-I2WL3ZJI Rules 1 and 2 chud.
I liked poopchan until it got child porn spammed.
I necrobumped the board to strategically remove a thread I did not like from the front page (it was my own thread). Probably won't do it again.
Gunbuster is pretty damn good.
>>fa-C774YZ12 (OP) Die, buster!
RIDE ON
>>fa-O2W5A7WU SHOOTING STAR
what u worry bout trip codes for you cant even render a gif thumbnail properly morons
Man I love farts.
Brasserie
>>fbint-2XSXLCFR I love brasserie
Akari...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
v0.2.0-c793a28