in reply to Style geekcode

A couple of things that stood out with this geek stylecode ... Hrmmm, geek and style, is that a contradiction of terms in itself? ... Anyhow ...

 

Very nifty though ... Juerd++

 

I4 Os1 ;0 S,><.><+>**<=><&&><and><gt> B1
L1 C2 P2 N< R1 Vc1a2p(s0h0a0)r0d2 Hsw2T sub-main

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Style geekcode
by Juerd (Abbot) on Mar 25, 2002 at 15:28 UTC

    Hrmmm, geek and style, is that a contradiction of terms in itself?

    I like to think so ;)

    * The ++ denotation within the whitespace around operators seems without merit

    I knew I had to document it better (will do). It's just the difference between $foo++ and $foo ++ - choose any direction ;)

    # The == denotation within the whitespace around operators is duplicated by the gt denotation because in fact, after all, == is just another equality test.

    I separated them because I have seen someone consequently use "$foo > $bar" and "$foo==$bar"

    * For example, Vp(s0h0a0) should be able to be reduced to Vp0.

    Perhaps, but that would make the rules very complex, and I think that if someone's going to parse, a simple regex will have to be able to do the job ;)

    U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
    W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
    ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
    geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk