@Skillmon ^^ rabbits are smart :)

@UlrikeFischer ooh

@PauloCereda but which chicken is vegan? Chicken are omnivore as far as I know.

@Skillmon ooh

That complicates things

@Skillmon humans are omnivore too.

@Skillmon @UlrikeFischer we ducks like chocolate, but apparently we could not eat chocolate... :)

@UlrikeFischer but only humans are stupid enough to decide not to be omnivore anymore and become vegan...

@Skillmon /rabbit sounds

@Skillmon you query the likelihood of a vegan chicken eating a carrot, but don't comment on the fact that it's talking in English to a Rabbit?

@DavidCarlisle ooh le poulet

@DavidCarlisle no, that seems reasonable to me, as a rabbit communicating in English with a duck, a marmot, and a few humans.

@Skillmon ooh

@marmot I beat you in 6 seconds (15:13:39 compared to 15:13:47). Ohh

@JouleV Yes, must be getting old. Gave +1. (To be honest I didn't intend to answer this question. If you jam up the beamer slide like this, the audience may not appreciate it. Of course, that's the OP's problem. ;-)

8 seconds (sorry for the typo)

@marmot The text size is actually too small. He may need another way to illustrate his ideas

@JouleV Yes, first try to understand things better and then focus on the relevant information. No one will grasp the information contained in such a large mind map in a talk.

@marmot There are six branches. If I had to make that presentation, I would use six slides for that, not only one

@JouleV Something like this. Or ask myself what I really want to say, i.e. what the take-home message is. BTW, do you know Jean Tran Thanh Van?

@marmot I read about him about once or twice before.

@JouleV He's organizing a conference series in Moriond, not far away from some marmot burrows.

@marmot the marmot got the honey and now asks "what now?"

@marmot and our tikzita physicist will attend him, I guess?

@JouleV No. It is during hibernation time.

@UlrikeFischer Do you know how to make honey liquor?

@marmot Oh I forgot it :)

@marmot put it in the sun and wait?

@JouleV No, more seriously it is one of these huge conferences which is not really made to exchange information. Plus I am not very good at Alpine skiing. I prefer the Aspen summer workshops.

@UlrikeFischer Not quite. (What do you mathematicians learn in your studies?)

@CarLaTeX You live near the Alps, maybe you can help @marmot in Alpine skiing

@JouleV Yes, I live near the Alps but when I tried to learn skiing I broke my shoulder. Hence, I decided seaside is my place!

@CarLaTeX The Alps seems to be dangerous then

@JouleV Not the Alps, only skiing :)

@CarLaTeX I'm from a tropical country (it is currently extremely hot here), so only the temperature in the Alps can be a bit dangerous to me

Today it is 40 degree Celcius (104 degree Fahrenheit). Literally too hot to be outside.

@JouleV No problem about that if you wear the appropriate ski suit :)

@CarLaTeX What is the temperature there currently? I will have problem with my health if it drops below 3 degree Celcius

@JouleV Last Summer we reached 37° in Milan, I can understand how you feel

@JouleV In Winter on the Alps it can fall well below -3°C

@CarLaTeX If we say about 'last summer', in Hanoi it reached 45 normally and even > 50 in peak hours. But I usually stay in the north during summer, where the weather is more convenient.

@CarLaTeX Well, I will have to familiarize myself a bit if I go to the Alps some day

@JouleV There are lovely places on the Alps, I'm sure you'll enjoy them

@CarLaTeX @JouleV And say hi to my relatives when you meet them. ;-)

@marmot Of course!

@marmot I just discovered that your friends in the Alps have a very nice name: marmota marmota.

@JouleV Yes of course. (Imagine you were only marmotb or even marmotc. ;-))

@UlrikeFischer ^^^^ my fellow marmots say hi!

@JosephWright why are the l3 booleans created using \ifodd? For me the more obvious implementation would've been \ifnum#1>0.

@Skillmon Why?

@JosephWright just out of curiosity. Or do you mean why the \ifnum approach would've been more obvious?

@Skillmon You need more tokens: not self-contained

@JosephWright but Boolean algebra is easier to do with it, isn't it?

@Skillmon Why? You still have to collect stuff up

@Skillmon We used to use \if ...

@JosephWright I wrote an implementation that is twice as fast for Boolean expression (but doesn't support NOT...) with the \ifnum approach.

@Skillmon Talk to Bruno: he looked over the current code, although I think most of the ideas are really Morten's

@JosephWright :) Sorry for bothering you.

@Skillmon Most of load for expressions is the TF part I think: I know Bruno's tried a few things there

@Skillmon Is that the \bool_if:nTF approach or \bool_lazy_...? The latter is the only really safe code

@JosephWright the former. Didn't write any lazy stuff, just wrote it down really quick the last 10 minutes or so.

@JosephWright the code currently just replaces every || with + and every && with * inside of a \numexpr.

@Skillmon Is it expandable? How do you deal with ( tokens in the input (e.g. \token_if_eq_meaning_p:nN)

@JosephWright it is expandable, currently only stuff like \token_if_eq_meaning_p:NN || or \token_if_eq_meaning_p:NN && would fail. Parenthesis aren't handled at all, they are left for \numexpr to evaluate. Currently trying to implement a reasonable NOT (which unfortunately needs to handle parenthesis).

@Skillmon Like I said, talk to Bruno or perhaps raise on the team list. We are not tied to any particular implementation

@JosephWright I'm not sure whether mine would be better, as I said, the parenthesis would be a problem if I wrote a NOT implementation.

@Skillmon isn't that the logic for \ifodd rather than \ifnum#1>0 ?

@DavidCarlisle \ifodd\c_true_bool+\c_true_bool results in \ifodd2 which isn't odd and would yield false, though it is true.

@Skillmon yes + is exclusive or so you need to re-arrange a bit, but how are you using a >0 test with ifnum?

@DavidCarlisle but + shouldn't be exclusive. But \ifnum\numexpr\c_true_bool+\c_true_bool>0 results in \ifnum2>0 which is true.

@DavidCarlisle || is OR not XOR.

@Skillmon yes sure as I say you'd need to re-arrange a bit going from || and && to + and * but using the arithmetic over F_2 is a well understood model of booleans but I'm not sure how you are using >

@DavidCarlisle AND is *, OR is + and NOT is (1-#1), if you use that mapping everything >0 is true and 0 is false.

@Skillmon but isn't not(true or true) then 1-2 which is negative?

@DavidCarlisle yep, you'd have to normalize #1 in NOT, but I deleted the code anyway, the approach wouldn't be robust with parenthesis even if you'd normalize #1 for NOT.

@Skillmon but numexpr might be an interesting way to implement boolean logic if you use + as xor then parens do the right thing and all you need to test is the final number being odd....

@DavidCarlisle so you'd have to use \ifnum\numexpr#1>0 0\else1\fi for NOT instead (better than normalizing implementation wise).

@DavidCarlisle not sure why you still want to go for the \ifodd approach though, I like my >0 test with OR instead of XOR.

@DavidCarlisle still handling NOT correctly would be a mess, since it'd need to grab arguments in parenthesis and hence would be not robust against stuff like \token_if_eq_meaning_p:NN with a parenthesis as one of the tokens.

@Skillmon There's no way of dealing with ( in \bool_if:nTF and keeping expandablity and lazy evaluation: something has to give somewhere. I'd look to \bool_lazy_or:nnTF or similar if you want to re-code things

@Skillmon because the integers mod 2 are the booleans:-)

@DavidCarlisle Psssst. ;-)

@Skillmon Like I said, send the code to LaTeX-L or the team list: it's quite possible it would work well (the existing approach likely goes back to before e-TeX was required, which may make a difference)

@Skillmon I came late to this, but: With the \ifodd interpretation, NOT is just adding 1, isn't it? What could be simpler?

@HaraldHanche-Olsen yes and yes

@marmot -- Who's the blue one? Did s/he stay out in the cold too long?

@barbarabeeton That's a friend who is visiting, not a marmot, but also likes honey liquor.