Thought this was interesting

[cjolley]

I forgot to add:

Re:
main(t,_,a)
char *a;
{

The declaration outside the brackets is a an old way of declaring globals.

chuck

[spazm_1999]

Which hold a huge string. I just checked how much time that thing has to loop before writing the string and it's amasing. It loops 69606 times before having the correct string to write.

Spazm

[Wombat]

You're right Chuck. You can do any recursive algorithm iteratively. I was wrong, not sure what I was thinking of at the time. Still, it doesn't mean that the iterative approach will be better.

And I don't use the ternary much either, but it has it's uses. Some compilers can/will optimise it very effectively, and it has different precedence than if/then/else, which can improve the readability of some code (the example escapes me, but there's a classic in C where it cuts out a couple pairs of parentheses).

[cjolley]

Just noticed that ubb screwed with the code (so to speak )
Not all of it shows above.
Here is the complete text:

<code>
#include <stdio.h>
main(t,_,a)
char *a;
{
return!0<t?t<3?main(-79,-13,a+main(-87,1-_,main(-86,0,a+1)+a)):
1,t<_?main(t+1,_,a):3,main(-94,-27+t,a)&&t==2?_<13?
main(2,_+1,"%s %d %d\n"):9:16:t<0?t<-72?main(_,t,
"@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr/+,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w#q#n+,/#{l+,/n{n+,/+#n+,/#\
;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l \
q#'+d'K#!/+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){)#}w'){){nl]'/+#n';d}rw' i;# \
){nl]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#n'wk nw' \
iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i; :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c \
;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;#'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')# \
}'+}##(!!/")
:t<-50?_==*a?putchar(a[31]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a=='/')+t,_,a+1)
:0<t?main(2,2,"%s"):*a=='/'||main(0,main(-61,*a,
"!ek;dc i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:\nuwloca-O;m .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);
}

</code>

[spazm_1999]

I untangled all the ?: into if exept one.... the first one on the first line. It compile without error/waning but it only display the fisrt line of the string probably because the function loops without being able to reach the condition (that i have removed) to run backward and display the others.

Spazm

[cjolley]

I'll see if I can find a copy I worked on.
It ran correctly even if not all the ?: were converted.
Maybe it will help.

I don't think of programs like this a s looping.
I think of them as diving down through the stack leaving bread-crumbs along the way so they can find their way back

chuck

[spazm_1999]

It's ok, i just misplaced one of my else somewhere.
Well even if there's no loop, it loop's in a way by recalling itself... but your right it's not a true loop.

Spazm

[cjolley]

Originally posted by spazm_1999
It's ok, i just misplaced one of my else somewhere....
Spazm

If you have it converted & working e-mail me the code please.
I'd like to play with it.
I don't get to do much with C anymore.
chuck

[spazm_1999]

No problem.

Spazm