Potential golfing oppurtunity

[ConorOBrien-Foxx]

This could be an unrealistic way to shave bytes, but I thought I'd mention it just in case.

In this answer, I noticed an odd pattern:

&*XRXzXM

The final 3 functions were all modified by X. Could it be useful to have something like "enable implicit modifier"? I'll use <M>_ to denote this, seeing as X_, Y_, and Z_ are unused. This answer could become:

&*X_RzM

...saving 1 byte. It is very situational, but maybe common enough to warrant this shorthand. I want to do a bit of a corpus analysis to see if this would do anything useful, similar to lynn's for Jelly

[lmendo]

Thanks for the idea! However, as you say it seems to be very situational. Using @Suever's analytics script, I've done a quick check of all 1640 MATL answers so far. There are:

• one answer with three or more X functions in a row, besides the one you mention, which is not detected by the script, probably because the code is in a second part of the answer;
• none with Y;
• two with Z.

So it seems to be relatively rare. Besides, in two of those four cases the functions are not at the end of the code, so a closing modifier would be required, increasing the byte count.