Charcoal

« first day (6 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (420 days later) »

ASCII-only

12:40 AM

@DLosc I was gonna go with fullwidth [] for array delimiters

ASCII-only

12:51 AM

@DLosc github.com/ETHproductions/crayon/blob/gh-pages/docs/Encoding.md

@DLosc IDK, we definitely need a parser, and I may need to some refactoring

*to od

3 hours later…

DLosc

3:48 AM

@ASCII-only Good find, that's a helpful comparison.

IMO, however, we don't need to spend 7 out of 256 characters on turn operators, just to ensure that they can be done in 1 byte. From the collection of questions I've looked through, the great majority can be accomplished using NSEW (absolute directions). Turns (relative directions) are rare enough that we can afford to spend 2 bytes when we need to use them.

@ASCII-only ⟦ ⟧ gives better visual distinction from ASCII [ ], wouldn't you say?

@ASCII-only Of course the current state of the code isn't what we'll use for the final version. It'll be continually revised, refined, added to, and rearranged as we go. That's what I meant by "evolve."

I'm just saying there's no need to start over from a blank file, as the basic workings of the Canvas class will be able to support the high-level operations we want to build.

ASCII-only

4:11 AM

@DLosc IDK, ［］ seems good enough to me, plus it's the syntax everyone is used to

DLosc

... except it's not the syntax everyone is used to, because those aren't the characters you type on your keyboard. They just look enough like them to confuse people unless they notice the spacing (or that they're slightly smaller, but only slightly).

Whereas ⟦ ⟧ looks similar enough to square brackets to be easily learnable, but different enough to be easily distinguishable.

ASCII-only

Then what about {}

DLosc

The ASCII characters { }? All printable ASCII characters should be treated as literals, except in a few exceptional situations where we can be sure they won't parse ambiguously.

ASCII-only

I mean what would be its equivalent (for sets/dictionaries)

DLosc

Oh, I see.

First off, do we need sets/dictionaries?

ASCII-only

4:16 AM

Yeah, dictionaries for replacement/translation probably?

DLosc

Secondly, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket has a lot of options, including these ⦃ ⦄ if you want something analogous to the square brackets.

ASCII-only

Oh yay

DLosc

I am kinda wanting to use the chevrons ⟨ ⟩ and guillemets « » for something, just because the names are cool ^_^

Though the chevrons do look a bit similar to parentheses.

⟨ ⟩ ( )

ASCII-only

Not to me:〈〉

DLosc

〈〉 <>

Probably better, yeah.

OTOH, "readable" probably trumps "has a cool name." ~~chevrons~~

ASCII-only

4:29 AM

I used the chevrons at the very top, which are a lot more readable

> <>: Occasionally known as broken brackets or brokets

DLosc

@ASCII-only ?

Those are the ASCII ones

Or are you saying that's what you punched into the full-width converter?

ASCII-only

Yeah, but I just think it's funny they're called broken brackets

DLosc

Oh, that was two separate comments.

DLosc

5:16 AM

Okay, Very Important Question:

What are we naming this thing? ;)

ASCII-only

No idea

We could make a strawpoll and post it to TNB

Maybe Canvas :P

Crayon was named because pointer + art

Turtlèd was named because it was like LOGO

DLosc

And another 2D-output language, pb, is an abbreviation for "paintbrush"

Something art-related might be good. I thought about Picasso, but that would imply the output is all wonky =P

Canvas is probably not good because Google will turn up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element instead

DLosc

5:43 AM

I'm looking through various subcategories of printmaking ATM

"Intaglio" is a cool word

Gutenberg is a possibility

Maybe a bit pretentious as it implies "We're revolutionizing ASCII art code golf"... but if all goes to plan, we kind of are...

ASCII-only

Gutenberg sounds a little old IMO, I was going for Ascendance before I realized it's got nothing to do with ASCII-art so it's a bad name

Also this is art, not printing

DLosc

Printmaking

Printmaking is the process of making artworks by printing, normally on paper. Printmaking normally covers only the process of creating prints that have an element of originality, rather than just being a photographic reproduction of a painting. Except in the case of monotyping, the process is capable of producing multiples of a same piece, which is called a print. Each print produced is not considered a "copy" but rather is considered an "original". This is because typically each print varies to an extent due to variables intrinsic to the printmaking process, and also because the imagery of a print...

ASCII-only

Oh wait

What does Gutenberg have to do with printmaking

DLosc

Well, touche. I think he was more on the letters than the artwork side.

ASCII-only

Some of the more famous artists I see there are Rembrandt, Goya and Dürer

DLosc

5:53 AM

> Rembrandt

ASCII-only

And van Gogh, Dalí and Warhol (and Picasso)