I have seen a lot of C/C++ based solutions to this problem where we have to write a program that upon execution prints its own source.
some solutions --
http://www.cprogramming.com/challenges/solutions/self_print.html
Quine Page solution in many languages
There are many more solutions on the net, each different from the other. I wonder how do we approach to such a problem, what goes inside the mind of the one who solves it. Lend me some insights into this problem... While solutions in interpreted languages like perl, php, ruby, etc might be easy... i would like to know how does one go about designing it in compiled languages...
Aside from cheating¹ there is no difference between compiled and interpreted languages.
The generic approach to quines is quite easy. First, whatever the program looks like, at some point it has to print something:
print ...
However, what should it print? Itself. So it needs to print the "print" command:
print "print ..."
What should it print next? Well, in the mean time the program grew, so it needs to print the string starting with "print", too:
print "print \"print ...\""
Now the program grew again, so there's again more to print:
print "print \"print \\\"...\\\"\""
And so on.
With every added code there's more code to print.
This approach is getting nowhere,
but it reveals an interesting pattern:
The string "print \"" is repeated over and over again.
It would be nice to put the repeating part
into a variable:
a = "print \""
print a
However, the program just changed,
so we need to adjust a:
a = "a = ...\nprint a"
print a
When we now try to fill in the "...",
we run into the same problems as before.
Ultimately, we want to write something like this:
a = "a = " + (quoted contents of a) + "\nprint a"
print a
But that is not possible,
because even if we had such a function quoted() for quoting,
there's still the problem that we define a in terms of itself:
a = "a = " + quoted(a) + "\nprint a"
print a
So the only thing we can do is putting a place holder into a:
a = "a = #\nprint a"
print a
And that's the whole trick!
Anything else is now clear.
Simply replace the place holder
with the quoted contents of a:
a = "a = #\nprint a"
print a.replace("#", quoted(a))
Since we have changed the code,
we need to adjust the string:
a = "a = #\nprint a.replace(\"#\", quoted(a))"
print a.replace("#", quoted(a))
And that's it!
All quines in all languages work that way
(except the cheating ones).
Well, you should ensure that you replace only
the first occurence of the place holder.
And if you use a second place holder,
you can avoid needing to quote the string.
But those are minor issues
and easy to solve.
If fact, the realization of quoted() and replace()
are the only details in which the various quines really differ.
¹ by making the program read its source file
There are a couple of different strategies to writing quines. The obvious one is to just write code that opens the code and prints it out. But the more interesting ones involve language features that allow for self-embedding, like the %s-style printf feature in many languages. You have to figure out how to embed something so that it ends up resolving to the request to be embedded. I suspect, like palindromes, a lot of trial and error is involved.
The usual approach (when you can't cheat*) is to write something that encodes its source in a string constant, then prints out that constant twice: Once as a string literal, and once as code. That gets around the "every time I write a line of code, I have to write another to print it out!" problem.
'Cheating' includes:
- Using an interpreted language and simply loading the source and printing it
- 0-byte long files, which are valid in some languages, such as C.
For fun, I came up with one in Scheme, which I was pretty proud of for about 5 minutes until I discovered has been discovered before. Anyways, there's a slight modification to the "rules" of the game to better count for the duality of data and code in Lisp: instead of printing out the source of the program, it's an S-expression that returns itself:
((lambda (x) (list x `',x)) '(lambda (x) (list x `',x)))
The one on Wikipedia has the same concept, but with a slightly different (more verbose) mechanism for quoting. I like mine better though.
One idea to think about encoding and how to give something a double meaning so that it can be used to output something in a couple of forms. There is also the cavaet that this type of problem comes with restrictions to make it harder as without any rules other than the program output itself, the empty program is a solution.
How about actually reading and printing your source code? Its not difficult at all!! Heres one in php:
<?php
{
header("Content-Type: text/plain");
$f=fopen("5.php","r");
while(!feof($f))
{
echo fgetc($f);
}
fclose($f);
}
?>
In python, you can write:
s='c=chr(39);print"s="+c+s+c+";"+s';c=chr(39);print"s="+c+s+c+";"+s
inspired from this self printing pseudo-code:
Print the following line twice, the second time with quotes.
"Print the following line twice, the second time with quotes."
I've done a AS3 example for those interested in this
var program = "var program = #; function main(){trace(program.replace('#',
String.fromCharCode(34) + program + String.fromCharCode(34)))} main()";
function main(){
trace(program.replace('#', String.fromCharCode(34) + program + String.fromCharCode(34)))
}
main()
In bash it is really easy
touch test; chmod oug+x test; ./test
Empty file, Empty output
In ruby:
puts File.read(_ _ FILE _ _)
Related
I'm trying to make a "very simple" syntax highlight for "cottle" (which is a script language used in a text-to-speech app dedicated to Elite:Dangerous).
All i want (at least at the beginning) is to have three different colours: Comments, "non-strings", and strings.
I started trying with the ST3 wiki, youtube tutorials, questions here.... but i can't sort out how to do it, 'cause the way the language work.
I'll try to show you an example
{ everything_between_a_pair_of_brackets_is_code }
everything outside all pairs of bracket is a string {_ and this is a comment. It begins with "_" and ends at the closing bracket }
{ This_is_code("but this is a string")
This_is_still_code("this is also a string {but_this_is_code(\"and a string\")} and this the end of the string")
}
My problem is how to define this kind of "nidification" in my cottle.sublime-syntax file. I managed to get the comment, but only the first one.
- EDIT -
This is a real script:
{event.item}
{if event.repairedfully:
fully repaired
|else:
partially repaired
{Occasionally(2,
cat(
OneOf("to ", "at "),
Humanise(event.health * 100),
" percent functionality"
)
)}
}
{Occasionally(2,
cat(OneOf(", ", "and is"), " ready for re-activation")
)}.
The output of this script could be "Engine module fully repaired." or "Engine module partially repaired, and is ready for re-activation."
Please note the last dot of the phrase, which in the code is after the last bracket.
This is another sample, with strings passed to functions inside other strings:
{OneOf("{ShipName()} has", "")}
{OneOf("left supercruise", "{OneOf(\"entered\", \"returned to\", \"dropped to\")} normal space")}
My question is:
how sublime-syntax files handle this kind of nidification?
Looking at the overview of the templating language over at https://cottle.readthedocs.io/en/stable/page/01-overview.html, it seems to be an easy syntax for which to write a .sublime-syntax for, but given the utter lack of resources for knowing how syntax files works in ST, I can understand it can be sometimes difficult to start or even understand.
So, I took the liberty of creating a starter syntax definition (the result of an hour & a half of boredom on a Saturday evening), which you can take and work upon. Note that I have not used the language and as such made it by just reading the docs and looking over code snippets.
You can find a gist for it here (https://gist.github.com/Ultra-Instinct-05/96fa99e1aaeb32b12d1e62109d61fcc2)
Here is a screenshot showing it in the color scheme I use (which follows the official scope naming guidelines).
It still lacks support for user defined functions (as I came to know from the docs) (and probably a few other things), but maybe that's something you can add to it !
Note that to use it, save the file as Cottle.sublime-syntax in your User package. Right now files having a .cottle extension are highlighted (because I don't know how you create a cottle file).
The syntax definition doesn't use any new feature added in ST4, so it should work the same in both ST3 & ST4.
I'm not great at programming, but I was trying to fiddle around with a conky_rc file I liked that I found that seemed pretty straight-forward.
As the title states, I have now learned that the previous command of pre_exec has been long removed and superseded by Lua.
Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find anything directly related to this other than https://github.com/brndnmtthws/conky/issues/62. The thread https://github.com/brndnmtthws/conky/issues/146 references it, and its "solution" states: Basically, there is no replacement and you should use Lua or use a very large interval and execi.
I have found a few more threads that all include the question as to why this function was discontinued, but with no actual answers. So, to reiterate mine, I have absolutely no knowledge of Lua (I've heard of it before, and I've now added a few websites to look at tomorrow since I have spent most of the evening trying to figure out this Conky thing), and I'll probably just give up and do the execi option (my computer can handle it but, I just think it's so horribly inefficient).
Is there an appropriate Lua option? If so, would someone please direct me to either the manual or wiki for it, or explain it? Or is the "proper" Lua solution this?
#Vincent-C It's not working for your script is because the function
ain't getting call. from the quick few tests I did, it seem
lua_startup_hook need the function to be in another file that is
loaded using lua_load, not really sure how the hook function thingy
all works cause I rather just directly use the config as lua since it
is lua.
Basically just call the io.popen stuff and concat it into conky.text
conky.text = [[ a lot of stuff... ${color green} ]];
o = io.popen('fortune -s | cowsay', 'r') conky.text = conky.text ..
o:read('*a')
The comment by asl97 on the first page you cited appears to provide an answer, but a bit of explanation would probably help.
asl97 provides the following general purpose Lua function to use as a substitute for $pre_exec, preceded by a require statement to make io available for use by the function:
require 'io'
function pre_exec(cmd)
local handle = io.popen(cmd)
local output = handle:read("*a")
handle:close()
return output
end
Adding this block of code to your conky configuration file will make the function available for use therein. For testing, I added it above the conky.config = { ... } section.
Calling the Lua pre_exec function will return a string containing the output of the command passed to it. The conky.text section from [[ to ]] is also a string, so it can then be conactenated to the string returned by pre_exec using the .. operator, as shown in the usage section provided by asl97.
In my test, I did the following silly bit, which worked as expected, to display "Hello World!" and the output of the date function with spacing above and below each at the top of my conky display:
conky.text = pre_exec("echo; echo Hello World!; echo; date; echo")..[[
-- lots of boring conky stuff --
]]
More serious commands can, of course, be used with pre_exec, as shown by asl97.
One thing that asl97 didn't explain was how to provide how to concatenate so that the pre_exec output is in the middle of the conky display rather than just the beginning. I tested and found that you can do it like the following:
conky.text = [[
-- some conky stuff --
]]..pre_exec("your_important_command")..[[
-- more conky stuff --
]]
i´ve got small problem and before I spend even more time in trying to solve it i´d like to know if what I want to do is even possible ( and maybe input on how to do it^^).
My problem:
I want to take some text and then split it into different strings at every whitespace (for example "Hello my name is whatever" into "Hello" "my" "name" "is" "whatever").
Then I want to set every string with it´s own variable so that I get something alike to a= "Hello" b= "my" and so on. Then I want to compare the strings with other strings (the idea is to get addresses from applications without having to search through them so I thought I could copy a telephone book to define names and so on) and set matching input to variables like Firstname , LastName and street.
Then, and here comes the "I´d like to know if it´s possible" part I want it to put it into our database, this means I want it to copy the string into a text field and then to go to the next field via tab. I´ve done something like this before with AutoIT but i´ve got no idea how to tell AutoIT whats inside the strings so I guess it must be done through the programm itself.
I´ve got a little bit of experience with c++, python and BATCH files so it would be nice if anyone could tell me if this can even be done using those languages (and I fear C++ can do it and I´m just to stupid to do so).
Thanks in advance.
Splitting a string is very simple, there is usually a built in method called .split() which will help you, the method varies from language to language.
When you've done a split, it will be assigned to an array, you can then use an index to get the variables, for example you'd have:
var str = "Hello, my name is Bob";
var split = str.split(" ");
print split[0]; // is "Hello,"
print split[1]; // is "my" etc
You can also use JSON to return data so you could have an output like
print split["LastName"];
What you're asking for is defiantly possible.
Some links that could be useful:
Split a string in C++?
https://code.google.com/p/cpp-json/
How can I reference an input twice in a one line code?
Ex:
my_word=input()
print("hey" if my_word==my_word else "bye")
You are only referencing it once right now, so this is easy:
print("hey" if input().isdigit() else "bye")
Though you could argue that this line of code does too much, and may be difficult to maintain. Breaking it into two lines makes maintenance easier, and for example it also allows you to set a breakpoint on the print line and inspect the value in my_word if you wanted to.
For academic reasons, here is one possible solution to evaluating an expression once but using it multiple times in one statement: list comprehension. (This is a terrible, terrible idea, and you shouldn't do this. I mean it.)
[print(i if i.isdigit() else "bye") for i in (input(),)]
Consider the following sample codes:
1.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)
? 'yes'
: 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
2.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)?'yes': 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
The 2nd sample I am very comfortable with & I code in that style, but it was told that its wrong way of doing without any supportive reasons.
Why is it recommended not to use a single line ternary operator in Node.js?
Can anyone put some light on the reason why it is so?
Advance Thanks for great help.
With all coding standards, they are generally for readability and maintainability. My guess is the author finds it more readable on separate lines. The compiler / interpreter for your language will handle it all the same. As long as you / your project have a set standard and stick to it, you'll be fine. I recommend that the standards be worked on or at least reviewed by everyone on the project before casting them in stone. I think that if you're breaking it up on separate lines like that, you may as well define an if/else conditional block and use that.
Be wary of coding standards rules that do not have a justification.
Personally, I do not like the ternary operator as it feels unnatural to me and I always have to read the line a few times to understand what it's doing. I find separate if/else blocks easier for me to read. Personal preference of course.
It is in fact wrong to put the ? on a new line; even though it doesn’t hurt in practice.
The reason is a JS feature called “Automatic Semicolon Insertion”. When a var statement ends with a newline (without a trailing comma, which would indicate that more declarations are to follow), your JS interpreter should automatically insert a semicolon.
This semicolon would have the effect that IsAdminUser is assigned a boolean value (namely the result of User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges). After that, a new (invalid) expression would start with the question mark of what you think is a ternary operator.
As mentioned, most JS interpreters are smart enough to recognize that you have a newline where you shouldn’t have one, and implicitely fix your ternary operator. And, when minifying your script, the newline is removed anyway.
So, no problem in practice, but you’re relying on an implicit fix of common JS engines. It’s better to write the ternary operator like this:
var foo = bar ? "yes" : "no";
Or, for larger expressions:
var foo = bar ?
"The operation was successful" : "The operation has failed.";
Or even:
var foo = bar ?
"Congratulations, the operation was a total success!" :
"Oh, no! The operation has horribly failed!";
I completely disagree with the person who made this recommendation. The ternary operator is a standard feature of all 'C' style languages (C,C++,Java,C#,Javascript etc.), and most developers who code in these languages are completely comfortable with the single line version.
The first version just looks weird to me. If I was maintaining code and saw this, I would correct it back to a single line.
If you want verbose, use if-else. If you want neat and compact use a ternary.
My guess is the person who made this recommendation simply wasn't very familiar with the operator, so found it confusing.
Because it's easier on the eye and easier to read. It's much easier to see what your first snippet is doing at a glance - I don't even have to read to the end of a line. I can simply look at one spot and immediately know what values IsAdminUser will have for what conditions. Much the same reason as why you wouldn't write an entire if/else block on one line.
Remember that these are style conventions and are not necessarily backed up by objective (or technical) reasoning.
The reason for having ? and : on separate lines is so that it's easier to figure out what changed if your source control has a line-by-line comparison.
If you've just changed the stuff between the ? and : and everything is on a single line, the entire line can be marked as changed (based on your comparison tool).