You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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.
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:
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 asX_
,Y_
, andZ_
are unused. This answer could become:...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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: