Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #382985 > unrolled thread

Implicit String-Literal Concatenation

Started byLawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
First post2024-02-24 23:05 +0000
Last post2024-02-29 19:08 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 111 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-24 23:05 +0000
    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-25 17:38 +0100
      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-25 20:43 +0000
        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-25 21:20 +0000
    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-25 16:45 +0000
    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-25 20:25 +0000
    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Łukasz 'Maly' Ostrowski <l3vi4than@gmail.com> - 2024-02-26 21:12 +0100
      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-26 20:31 +0000
        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-27 13:18 +0100
          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-27 23:10 +0000
            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-28 00:50 +0100
    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-26 20:42 +0000
    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation porkchop@invalid.foo (Mike Sanders) - 2024-02-26 22:03 +0000
      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-26 23:17 +0000
        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation porkchop@invalid.foo (Mike Sanders) - 2024-02-27 17:27 +0000
      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-27 09:36 +0100
        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation porkchop@invalid.foo (Mike Sanders) - 2024-02-27 17:31 +0000
        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-27 18:56 +0000
          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-27 23:21 +0100
            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-27 22:52 +0000
              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-28 01:09 +0000
                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-28 12:50 +0100
                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-28 20:56 +0000
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-28 21:34 +0000
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-28 23:52 +0000
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-29 00:15 +0000
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-29 02:53 +0000
                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-29 09:20 +0000
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 15:48 +0000
                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-29 17:03 +0100
                              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 16:17 +0000
                                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-29 18:12 +0100
                                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 17:30 +0000
                                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 13:20 -0800
                                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-29 21:44 +0000
                                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 14:06 -0800
                                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-01 18:09 +0100
                                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-01 10:49 -0800
                                              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-03-01 22:06 +0100
                                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 09:20 -0800
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 08:58 +0100
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-29 21:05 +0000
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-01 09:16 +0100
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-01 16:55 +0000
                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-01 18:28 +0100
        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-27 20:25 +0000
          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-27 12:35 -0800
            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-27 23:03 +0000
          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-27 22:12 +0000
            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-28 12:54 +0100
              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-28 13:13 +0000
                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-28 15:08 +0100
                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 13:36 -0800
                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 11:56 +0000
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 16:19 +0100
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-29 21:36 +0000
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 13:53 -0800
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-01 12:59 +0000
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-01 20:59 +0000
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 08:08 -0800
                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-29 14:31 +0000
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-29 15:22 +0000
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 13:10 -0800
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 13:45 -0800
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 14:03 -0800
                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 14:14 -0800
                              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-02 13:48 -0800
                              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 04:48 +0000
                                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-04 20:55 -0800
                                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-07 21:08 +0000
                                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-07 21:44 +0000
                                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 14:25 -0800
                                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-03-07 23:00 +0000
                                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 15:46 -0800
                                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 16:17 -0800
                                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-03-08 00:26 +0000
                                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 14:16 -0800
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 16:30 +0100
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 08:25 -0800
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 08:18 -0800
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-29 18:17 +0100
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 09:22 -0800
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-29 19:26 +0000
                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-02-29 14:45 -0500
                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 13:41 -0800
              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 13:57 -0800
                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-28 23:01 +0000
                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 15:31 -0800
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-29 00:47 +0000
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 17:12 -0800
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-29 16:29 +0100
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 16:15 +0000
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 15:53 +0000
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 09:06 -0800
                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 17:28 +0000
                            Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 18:58 +0100
                              Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 18:05 +0000
                                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-29 18:09 +0000
                                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-29 21:27 +0000
                                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-01 11:52 +0000
                                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-05 04:47 +0000
                                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-03-05 15:09 +0000
                                          Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-06 01:49 +0000
                                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 20:51 +0100
                Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 10:10 +0100
                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-29 10:18 +0000
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-29 16:34 +0100
                      Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-03-01 11:58 +0000
                        Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-03-01 13:17 +0100
                  Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 09:03 -0800
                    Re: Implicit String-Literal Concatenation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-29 19:08 +0100

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#383129

FromKaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com>
Date2024-02-28 01:09 +0000
Message-ID<20240227170925.837@kylheku.com>
In reply to#383121
On 2024-02-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 23:21:28 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>> The #embed pre-processor directive turns the file into a list of integer
>> constants, one per byte (unless an implementation offers other options).
>
> What a waste of time.

Plus easily doable in 1970's Lisp.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383132

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2024-02-28 12:50 +0100
Message-ID<urn6li$3s62i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383129
On 28/02/2024 02:09, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-02-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 23:21:28 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> The #embed pre-processor directive turns the file into a list of integer
>>> constants, one per byte (unless an implementation offers other options).
>>
>> What a waste of time.
> 
> Plus easily doable in 1970's Lisp.
> 


That would be useful, if we were living in the 1970's or if anyone had 
wanted to learn Lisp this side of the millennium bug.

As I mentioned before, it's not particularly difficult to do this kind 
of manipulation, and people write utilities for them in a variety of 
languages, or download a variety of free tools for the job.

But it will often be more convenient to have it built into the language 
and compiler.  And for those interested in speed, the test 
implementations have handled this far more efficiently than other 
techniques.  Logically, #embed turns the file into a list of numbers. In 
practice, if you use it for the common case of initialising a const 
array of unsigned char, the compiler simply copies and pastes the file 
into the output as a binary blob.

It would, IMHO, have been useful also to have had an "embed operator" in 
the manner of the "pragma operator", so that it could be used in a macro 
definition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383140

FromLawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2024-02-28 20:56 +0000
Message-ID<uro6ls$2mh1$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383132
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:50:10 +0100, David Brown wrote:

> ... people write utilities for them in a variety of languages ...
> 
> But it will often be more convenient to have it built into the language
> and compiler.

What can be built into the language can only ever be a small subset of
the many and varied ways that people have incorporated data blobs into
their programs. Often these will need to have custom structures with
computed header fields, that kind of thing. So you will need custom
build tools to construct these structures, and then you might as well
include those blobs directly into the final build, rather than go
through some extra step of pretending to turn them back into some
source form.

For example, here’s an old Android project of mine (OK, so the app is
Java code, but the same principle applies)
<https://bitbucket.org/ldo17/unicode_browser_android/src/master/>
where I wrote a custom Python script to read a Nameslist.txt file
downloaded from unicode.org to generate a table which could be loaded
into memory quickly for easy searching.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383142

Frombart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2024-02-28 21:34 +0000
Message-ID<uro8sl$3d71$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383140
On 28/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:50:10 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> ... people write utilities for them in a variety of languages ...
>>
>> But it will often be more convenient to have it built into the language
>> and compiler.
> 
> What can be built into the language can only ever be a small subset of
> the many and varied ways that people have incorporated data blobs into
> their programs. Often these will need to have custom structures with
> computed header fields, that kind of thing. So you will need custom
> build tools to construct these structures, and then you might as well
> include those blobs directly into the final build, rather than go
> through some extra step of pretending to turn them back into some
> source form.
> 
> For example, here’s an old Android project of mine (OK, so the app is
> Java code, but the same principle applies)
> <https://bitbucket.org/ldo17/unicode_browser_android/src/master/>
> where I wrote a custom Python script to read a Nameslist.txt file
> downloaded from unicode.org to generate a table which could be loaded
> into memory quickly for easy searching.

I can see now where you get your coding style from. You seem to like 
stretching things out vertically as much as possible:

        public void Add
           (
             int CategoryCode,
             ItemType Item
           )
           /* Use this instead of add to populate CodeToIndex table. */
           {
             CodeToIndex.put(CategoryCode, getCount());
             add(Item);
           } /*Add*/

In C:

        void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {
             CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());
             add(Item);
        }

4 non-comment lines versus 9. I know Java needs tons of boilerplate, but 
but it is not all the language's fault.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383151

FromLawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2024-02-28 23:52 +0000
Message-ID<uroh0n$51an$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383142
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:34:14 +0000, bart wrote:

> In C:
> 
>         void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {
>              CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());
>              add(Item);
>         }
> 
> 4 non-comment lines versus 9. I know Java needs tons of boilerplate, but
> but it is not all the language's fault.

Or how about

    void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());add(Item);}

Wow! I never realized you could do that in C!! I thought it was an
error to put stuff after column 72 or something. Thanks for the tip!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383152

Frombart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2024-02-29 00:15 +0000
Message-ID<uroial$58n9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383151
On 28/02/2024 23:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:34:14 +0000, bart wrote:
> 
>> In C:
>>
>>          void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {
>>               CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());
>>               add(Item);
>>          }
>>
>> 4 non-comment lines versus 9. I know Java needs tons of boilerplate, but
>> but it is not all the language's fault.
> 
> Or how about
> 
>      void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());add(Item);}
> 
> Wow! I never realized you could do that in C!! I thought it was an
> error to put stuff after column 72 or something. Thanks for the tip!!!

Well, you could write an entire program on one line.

Or you can write an entire program in one thin column:

     v\
     o\
     i\
     d\
     ....

Or you can use common sense and avoiding writing code which is either 
too compact or so spread out vertically that you have to hunt for the 
actual code. Like trying to find the bits of meat in a thin soup.

That's what I took away from your Java code, which looks remarkably like 
the spaced-out examples you posted recently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383155

FromLawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2024-02-29 02:53 +0000
Message-ID<urorjd$ahe2$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383152
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:15:17 +0000, bart wrote:

> Or you can use common sense and avoiding writing code which is either
> too compact or so spread out vertically that you have to hunt for the
> actual code. Like trying to find the bits of meat in a thin soup.

Terribly sorry about that. I wonder if you could look at this part of the 
same code file:

    final android.util.SparseArray<Integer> CodeToIndex =
        new android.util.SparseArray<Integer>();

and show me how to thicken that part of my humble, tasteless gruel? Maybe 
using that same “_” trick you used to do OO in C in your previous example?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383158

Frombart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2024-02-29 09:20 +0000
Message-ID<urpi8u$eo9h$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383155
On 29/02/2024 02:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:15:17 +0000, bart wrote:
> 
>> Or you can use common sense and avoiding writing code which is either
>> too compact or so spread out vertically that you have to hunt for the
>> actual code. Like trying to find the bits of meat in a thin soup.
> 
> Terribly sorry about that. I wonder if you could look at this part of the
> same code file:
> 
>      final android.util.SparseArray<Integer> CodeToIndex =
>          new android.util.SparseArray<Integer>();
> 
> and show me how to thicken that part of my humble, tasteless gruel? Maybe
> using that same “_” trick you used to do OO in C in your previous example?

You've shown an example of a piece of meat. In main.java, 70% of the 
lines are either blanks or contain only an opening or closing bracket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383170

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2024-02-29 15:48 +0000
Message-ID<DH1EN.511038$xHn7.241242@fx14.iad>
In reply to#383152
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 28/02/2024 23:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:34:14 +0000, bart wrote:
>> 
>>> In C:
>>>
>>>          void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {
>>>               CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());
>>>               add(Item);
>>>          }
>>>
>>> 4 non-comment lines versus 9. I know Java needs tons of boilerplate, but
>>> but it is not all the language's fault.
>> 
>> Or how about
>> 
>>      void Add(int CategoryCode, ItemType Item) {CodeToIndex_put(CategoryCode, getCount());add(Item);}
>> 
>> Wow! I never realized you could do that in C!! I thought it was an
>> error to put stuff after column 72 or something. Thanks for the tip!!!
>
>Well, you could write an entire program on one line.

int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}

(A winner from the obfuscated C contest).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383173

FromJanis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Date2024-02-29 17:03 +0100
Message-ID<urq9st$mfrd$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383170
On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 
> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}

What does it do?

What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
does it need to compile?

> 
> (A winner from the obfuscated C contest).

(Are non-compiling C sources allowed in the contest?)

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383176

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2024-02-29 16:17 +0000
Message-ID<I62EN.21987$hN14.16206@fx17.iad>
In reply to#383173
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> 
>> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
>
>What does it do?
>
>What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
>does it need to compile?
>
>> 
>> (A winner from the obfuscated C contest).
>
>(Are non-compiling C sources allowed in the contest?)

https://www.ioccc.org/years.html

The above is from 'burton'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383181

FromJanis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Date2024-02-29 18:12 +0100
Message-ID<urqdtl$nbj3$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383176
On 29.02.2024 17:17, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
>>
>> What does it do?
>>
>> What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
>> does it need to compile?

With the link below I see it "needs" a 600+ lines long Makefile.

And I see there's some variable definitions with magic numbers
passed.

>>
>>>
>>> (A winner from the obfuscated C contest).
>>
>> (Are non-compiling C sources allowed in the contest?)
> 
> https://www.ioccc.org/years.html
> 
> The above is from 'burton'.

Thanks.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383186

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2024-02-29 17:30 +0000
Message-ID<sa3EN.22761$zF_1.16954@fx18.iad>
In reply to#383181
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 29.02.2024 17:17, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
>>>
>>> What does it do?
>>>
>>> What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
>>> does it need to compile?
>
>With the link below I see it "needs" a 600+ lines long Makefile.

The readme simply says compile it and run it
as ./prog <value between 1 and 512>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383197

FromKeith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Date2024-02-29 13:20 -0800
Message-ID<87sf1brmr0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
In reply to#383186
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>On 29.02.2024 17:17, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
>>>>
>>>> What does it do?
>>>>
>>>> What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
>>>> does it need to compile?
>>
>>With the link below I see it "needs" a 600+ lines long Makefile.
>
> The readme simply says compile it and run it
> as ./prog <value between 1 and 512>.

No, you have to compile it with specific command-line arguments to
define B and I.  The Makefile does that (don't ask me why it's so long),
but you can do it manually.

From hint.txt:
"""
On a little-endian machine:

    clang -include stdio.h -include stdlib.h -Wall -Weverything -pedantic -DB=6945503773712347754LL -DI=5859838231191962459LL -DT=0 -DS=7 -o prog prog.c

On a big-endian machine:

    clang -include stdio.h -include stdlib.h -Wall -Weverything -pedantic -DB=7091606191627001958LL -DI=6006468689561538903LL -DT=1 -DS=0 -o prog.be prog.c
"""

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383201

Frombart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2024-02-29 21:44 +0000
Message-ID<urqtrj$qjp1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383197
On 29/02/2024 21:20, Keith Thompson wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 29.02.2024 17:17, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
>>>>>
>>>>> What does it do?
>>>>>
>>>>> What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
>>>>> does it need to compile?
>>>
>>> With the link below I see it "needs" a 600+ lines long Makefile.
>>
>> The readme simply says compile it and run it
>> as ./prog <value between 1 and 512>.
> 
> No, you have to compile it with specific command-line arguments to
> define B and I.  The Makefile does that (don't ask me why it's so long),
> but you can do it manually.
> 
>  From hint.txt:
> """
> On a little-endian machine:
> 
>      clang -include stdio.h -include stdlib.h -Wall -Weverything -pedantic -DB=6945503773712347754LL -DI=5859838231191962459LL -DT=0 -DS=7 -o prog prog.c
> 
> On a big-endian machine:
> 
>      clang -include stdio.h -include stdlib.h -Wall -Weverything -pedantic -DB=7091606191627001958LL -DI=6006468689561538903LL -DT=1 -DS=0 -o prog.be prog.c
> """



In't it cheating when half the program is part of the build 
instructions? Here is a complete standalone program:

----------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define B 6945503773712347754LL
#define I 5859838231191962459LL
#define T 0
#define S 7
int main(int b,char**i){long long 
n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
----------------

It's 261 bytes. The 'one-liner' that was posted was 134 bytes.

(It appears to print an input of 0 to 255 as binary.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383205

FromKeith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Date2024-02-29 14:06 -0800
Message-ID<87frxbrklh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
In reply to#383201
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> In't it cheating when half the program is part of the build
> instructions?

Apparently not.  If it were, the judges of the IOCCC would not have
accepted it.

The most recent rules are here:

https://www.ioccc.org/2020/rules.txt

I have not studied them to verify that the entry in question obeys them,
but the judges know what they're doing.

One of the winners of the 1988 contest was:
```
#include "/dev/tty"
```

This won a "Best Abuse of the Rules" award and resulted in a change in
the 1989 rules to forbid doing the same thing again.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383222

FromJanis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Date2024-03-01 18:09 +0100
Message-ID<urt23j$1bdeo$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383205
On 29.02.2024 23:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> In't it cheating when half the program is part of the build
>> instructions?

I recall from decades ago (when I looked into this contest) that they
even had a contribution that fed the whole C program into the compiler
through compiler options. (I think it even got a prize.)

"Is it cheating?" - I'd say no, since it was accepted.

Is it really about an "obfuscated C code"? - I'd say no. (But it was
anyway a curiosity.)

> 
> Apparently not.  If it were, the judges of the IOCCC would not have
> accepted it.
> [...]
> 
> One of the winners of the 1988 contest was:
> ```
> #include "/dev/tty"

This is great! :-)

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383227

FromKeith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Date2024-03-01 10:49 -0800
Message-ID<87y1b1rdmd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
In reply to#383222
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 29.02.2024 23:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> In't it cheating when half the program is part of the build
>>> instructions?
>
> I recall from decades ago (when I looked into this contest) that they
> even had a contribution that fed the whole C program into the compiler
> through compiler options. (I think it even got a prize.)

1990/stig.c:
```
c
```

stig.ksh provides a ksh alias that compiles it with a long "-D..."
option.  (The resulting program prints a message indicating whether the
compiler supports nested /**/ comments.)

Like most Abuse of the Rules winners, it resulted in a rule change for
the following years.

https://www.ioccc.org/years.html#1990

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383231

FromJanis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Date2024-03-01 22:06 +0100
Message-ID<urtfvr$1eg6j$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#383227
On 01.03.2024 19:49, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> Like most Abuse of the Rules winners, it resulted in a rule change for
> the following years.

Makes sense.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#383183

FromKeith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Date2024-02-29 09:20 -0800
Message-ID<871q8vtcfh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
In reply to#383176
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>On 29.02.2024 16:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> 
>>> int main(int b,char**i){long long n=B,a=I^n,r=(a/b&a)>>4,y=atoi(*++i),_=(((a^n/b)*(y>>T)|y>>S)&r)|(a^r);printf("%.8s\n",(char*)&_);}
>>
>>What does it do?
>>
>>What preconditions must be fulfilled or what additions
>>does it need to compile?
>>
>>> 
>>> (A winner from the obfuscated C contest).
>>
>>(Are non-compiling C sources allowed in the contest?)
>
> https://www.ioccc.org/years.html
>
> The above is from 'burton'.

"burton" has submitted a number of entries over the years.  This one is
https://www.ioccc.org/2020/burton/index.html

The program by itself does not compile.  The provided Makefile passes
additional arguments, with B and I being defined differently in
big-endian vs. little-endian machines.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web