PATH and 10 Print Interpretation
From Maze
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
# Staring at the LFSR code in path (and even assembly) fills me with wonder as to how that chunk of code successfully stands in for "making an aesthetic decision." | # Staring at the LFSR code in path (and even assembly) fills me with wonder as to how that chunk of code successfully stands in for "making an aesthetic decision." | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Discussion == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Michael: "The output of 10 print is a path program." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ian: Except not really, because the output of 10 print is NOT / and \ but PETSCII characters that look similar to those but which are different. Just sayin. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nick: Right, but as I noted earlier, it's a Path' program where Path' is a modified version of Path that prepends $ to a program automatically before | ||
| + | processing it and uses PETSCII 109 and 110 instead of / and \. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jeremy: A succinct recap: 10 print outputs executable Path-prime programs, whose operations are a kind of performance of the maze-like wandering that we see implicit in 10 print. This is one response to the argument that 10 print does not informatically specify a maze-like texture, with a demonstration being that replacing the PETSCII characters with Ps and Qs, causing our perception of it to suddenly change. Path'' retorts that it threads the labyrinth of Ps and Qs all the same. What I love about Michael's Path version of 10 print is that it closes the loop -- it isn't a quine, or elegant in the way that a one-liner is elegant, but instead it uses a program in which characters that are visual metaphors are executed to specify output that are in turn a texture of similar visual metaphors, which are in turn executable. | ||
