Re^3: WitchTest - A Tool For Determining If A Woman Is Guilty Of Witchcraft

[bpoag]

1) I thought about going above and beyond the 1692 Salem spec, but didn't want to confuse the matter. This is also why I omitted any reason for trial. I'd imagine these trials would have been thrown out in Appeals, anyway. Hearsay isn't evidence.

2) True. I wanted to cut to the chase, however..If a witch is a true witch, then the code works. If the witch is not a witch, but accused by virtue of being named in @ARGV[0], then, she might just as well be a witch, and therefore the code works. She must be burned.

3) Absolutely. I felt it important to go ahead and perform the test for reasons of code readibility, however. Conditional statements can be tricky, and being so explicit prevents a witch from tampering with the code.

4) Much like the drowning test for witches, algorithmic simplicity is a goal I try to strive for as well. I omitted any drowning test subroutines, which, I admit, does deviate slightly from the 1692 Salem spec, but I'm not aware of any direct evidence of drowning test.

5) Saw it, and agree!

6) I agree. All women who's named are subjected to this test must be witches, by mere virtue of needing to BE tested. My code is algorithmically perfect. We all know witches are a problem these days, and burning at the stake has gone somewhat out of fashion.. I hope to reverse these trends, as I oppose witches and witchcraft of any form. Being such brings me into favor with God, and ensures my next year's crops will be plentiful.