Discussion between Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ and VisualMelon

Stack Exchange

16:44

C#, 100 bytes Supplied because I think the other C# answer is invalid, and this is a different way of generating the table entirely. Full program because I don't like supplying just functions... and because it's 100bytes. Appears to use the same method as the VBA answer provided by Joffan. cl...

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

i++<702; instead of i<702;i++ for -1. Main(i){for(; instead of Main(){for(int i=0; for -10?

VisualMelon

@EʀɪᴋᴛʜᴇGᴏʟғᴇʀ The first one isn't so simple, because we need to start at i=-1 instead, which just adds the byte back (we have to start a 0 because we are doing modulo). The second doesn't work, because C# doesn't guess types like C, and requires variables to be assigned before use (including primatives)

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

Suffix incrementation does not return the incremented value, it returns the value before incrementation. If int i is equal to 16, i++ would return 16, not 17.

VisualMelon

@EʀɪᴋᴛʜᴇGᴏʟғᴇʀ sorry, not sure I follow... it's i=0 so that the first value of i in the loop is 0 (so we get the alphabet proper, starting at 'A' - it's expensive to offset the modulus because it adds brackets). I am well acquainted with i++ and ++i, and note that they are well defined in C# (unlike C, I gather). I can't have the ++ in the i%27 because I need the same i in the i%26 (this will be the incremented value in C#, because it's to the right of the ++). This is why it would be nice to turn it around, and do a lookup on the value, so that the ++ can be at the end.

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

At least you can surely save a byte using i++<702; instead of i<702;i++. Are you sure i++ returns incremented i instead of i? ( ) Yes ( ) No [Submit]

VisualMelon

16:44

@EʀɪᴋᴛʜᴇGᴏʟғᴇʀ no, as stated before, this would require i=-1 initially (as the condition is evaluated before running anything inside the loop), which wastes the byte, else we can't start the loop at i=0, which we need to for this method to work sensibly.

Good day

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

If i == 0, then i++ == 0. Afterwards, i == 1.

VisualMelon

yes

If we start at i=0, and then perform the comparison i++<702, then we end up with i == 1 afterwards

this means the first iteration of the look is for i=1

which isn't going to end well (we end up with the Table starting with BCD... instead of ABC..)

the only way I can think of moving that ++ is to turn the thing into a lookup, or by multiplying by ((i++%27)/26) or similar, and these are all relatively expensive compared to the ternary conditional.

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

Oh, I think it finally clicked to me. So, you can do for(int i=0;i<702;) and replace i%26+65 with i++%26+65. Still, -1

VisualMelon

yeah

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

@VisualMelon Actually, I can't have a "Good day", it's alerady afternoon (or, night, I suppose) where I am.

VisualMelon

16:53

hehe, sorry

I say "Good day" all day every day

consider it "I hope you had a good day"

sorry, when I said yeah, I was wrong

(misread what you'd written completely)

ternary conditional is short-circuiting, so it won't increment when it prints a line-feed

if we turn it into a lookup, then not only can we force evaluation of that, which is nice, it means we can then use the i+1 value for the %27, and look for <1 rather than > 26, but I don't think it pays.

... scratch that last, you have to sign it for the lookup (duh), so that doesn't make sense

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

Well, I've found another one (sorry, still does not work as expected!): i++%27>25

VisualMelon

aye, that's the obvious one, but it breaks the i++%26

it costs a lot more to fix than it saves at that point

are you a C golfer/user?

Eʀɪᴋ ᴛʜᴇ Gᴏʟғᴇʀ

Mainly "user", but I also golf in it, although lately it's ungolfed...

last day (15 days later) »

all rooms