On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > And there are no general programs to analyze general programs, so
> > whatever rules you specify, it will have cracks.
>
> Except if you add an artificial upper bound. Say 10 of each letter/number,
> and 20 of each punctuation character. I'm not saying
--- Ton Hospel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In a momentary[0] insanity I came up with the concept of anti-golf.
> Can't be done.
Yup.
> e.g. I can convert the program to a turing machine and run it on that.
> t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a momentary[0] insanity I came up with the concept of anti-golf.
>
> Just looking for the largest solution wouldn't be fun. You can always
> add dead code. Demanding that every op-code should be executed isn't
>
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 10:47:26AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> In a momentary[0] insanity I came up with the concept of anti-golf.
I'm not sure how far it's been thought through, but the concept has been
suggested to be called "perl bowling".
> Can anyone come up with a bounded measurement tha
In a momentary[0] insanity I came up with the concept of anti-golf.
Just looking for the largest solution wouldn't be fun. You can always
add dead code. Demanding that every op-code should be executed isn't
much better, then you just have to add ramdom not used calculations in
the code.
For a whi
