@lyxal btw, did I get the intended solution?

No

I'm still working on the next one

Which is taking a bit longer than I thought because I'm reworking the solution I had planned

@AaroneousMiller @emanresuA codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/236107/78850

@AaroneousMiller I don't like how accurate this is

like seriously that's how I managed to remove r from my intended solution, by working on it really late and while feeling almost ready to sleep

@lyxal challenge accepted

@AaroneousMiller sponsored by hot wheels - © mattel

lol

I don't understand v<nilad> at all. :/

!!/run 12345 v0,,,

[@AaroneousMiller: 59315237]
⟨0⟩
⟨0⟩
12345

!!/run 12345 v0 ,,,

@AaroneousMiller (output was empty)

!!/run 12345 v0W,,,

[@AaroneousMiller: 59315249]
⟨0⟩
12345
0

!!/run 12345 vuW,,,

[@AaroneousMiller: 59315257]
⟨-1⟩
0
0

!!/run 12345 v.

@AaroneousMiller 0.5

!!/run 12345 v.,

@AaroneousMiller ⟨0|`.`|5⟩

!!/run 12345 v.,,,

[@AaroneousMiller: 59315273]
⟨0|`.`|5⟩
⟨0|`.`|5⟩
12345

._. wut

always and forever

¿

yep

I managed to get i by itself, so now I can index into stuff

If I can just get arbitrary numbers, I can grab C from one of the available builtins, and I'll have everything I need to crack it

lol I managed to get arbitrary negative numbers, which lets me index into kP with the aformentioned solitary i, which will let me grab basic arithmetic commands, which will allow me to increment, although it will be ridiculously expensive to do so

that moment when it takes 214 bytes to add 1 to a number

don't worry, I was able to golf it down to 208 bytes

wait no. it's actually 212 bytes

sorry, 210.

The incrementing is really expensive, but this time I don't have to increment literally a million times just to get a binary representation, so printing ! only takes 7235 bytes

all i have left to do is write up a program to calculate the total length and make the post

nice. only took me 2 hours:

I'm still waiting for Vyxal DO, 255 bytes

I did the math, and if I were to increment with u- instead of 1+, the full crack would be only 19,651,753 bytes instead of 29,401,143 bytes.

@AaroneousMiller Your (ab)use of Ė is really nice.

Yeah, I found it kind of useful here and there :p

CMQ: String interpolation? e.g. JS's `${String} Interpolation`

Personally, I think from the perspective of taking elements from praclangs, it would make sense, and could be useful, though I don't think it would be too useful from a golflang perspective.

Do we still need the Scala CMP pinned, or have we come to a decision on that?

@AaroneousMiller osabie has it

@AaroneousMiller %

And I think there was a proposal for a superformat that pops items from the stack and replaces % until all have been replaced, somewhere in #160 although I can't find it

I know that there's the % command, but I'm thinking more like how you can insert a expression into a template literal directly like that JS example.

@emanresuA because of course

6/9/420

Lol

Also, can we special-case number conversion to base 1? At the moment it just errors, but it could be useful for making 0-filled lists of specified lengths. Right now, the golfiest way to do that is ƛ0;, but we would be able to do 1τ instead.

v0 in the rewrite?

That's what's intended at least

Yeah, that would do pretty much the same thing, and makes a lot of sense.

The base 1 thing could still be useful e.g. for base conversion challenges or w/e so we don't have to special-case it in a submission.

I guess I could just add those to #160 and then we can think about that when the time comes.

It looks like there's already a similar idea with doing Þ0, Þ1 ... Þ9, but having it be v instead would make more sense, plus then we could use other nilads like u or ×.

Ye

I didn't think of that when I wrote that request.

oh I didn't realize that was you lol

Why did you change to "Aaroneous"?

Not complaining, it's cool

Gpt-3 rules the world.

I couldn't have GPT be wrong, now could I? ;P

> Prosus

That's a bit sussy

!!/sus

@lyxal ඞ

@AaroneousMiller Would be good and help shorten code

But expressions like that don't work too well in a stack-based language, do they?

Actually, that could work, nvm

the only thing i have against it is that it might not really save all that much because in normal languages concatenating or inserting things into strings can take a lot of overhead but in vyxal it's probably like 1 byte to just merge strings anyway

but due to stack structure it might take a bunch of bytes to manipulate item ordering so

i feel like it could work

as long as it doesn't interfere with strings that don't want interpolation (please don't make a flag that disables interpolation) it should not hurt byte count

@hyper-neutrino meaning it'd have to be something guaranteed to not be used very often

I think a flag to enable interpolation would border on cheaty but wouldn't be too bad

Maybe `%{}`

@lyxal yeah

that would definitely not interfere much but it's 3 bytes instead of 2 which i'm not sure about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i don't suppose we could use non-ascii characters, since the dictionary is full?

@hyper-neutrino let me just check if there's the possibility to do that

@hyper-neutrino currently, there's capacity for 26082 words if my calculations are correct

And there are 23102 words in the dictionary

Using a non-ascii char would make the dictionary capacity 25760 words

So it could work

oh