Good and bad news

Good news is that by common efforts we clear first hurdle, 357 bytes.

Bad news is that Ruby is also don't stand still, and as you can see here it's now four lines and 306 bytes long!

n=[];p=$<.readlines;$==f=l=c=0;loop{p[l].gsub(/(a)|(i)|(n)|(o)|(h)|(e)
+|(s)|t/){
f>0?$6?n<<c&&c=f=0:c="htaoins".index($&)+c*7: $1?n<<l+2: $2?n<<STDIN.g
+etc: $3?f=
1:(a=n.pop;$4?$><<a.chr: $5?n<<n[-1-a.abs]&&a>0&&n.slice!(-2-a):(b=n.p
+op;$6?n<<
b/a&&n<<b%a: $7?n<<b-a: b!=0&&(l=a-2;break)))};p[l+=1]&&l>=0||break}
[download]

How do you like this intrigue?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
last version by locked_user mtve (Deacon) on Feb 19, 2002 at 08:36 UTC
is 342 bytes `map{push@L,@C+0;push@C,lc=~/./g}<>;sub p{pop@n}sub w{push@n,@_}while($ +n<@C){$_= $C[$n++];if(/h/){$_=p;w$n[-1-abs];$_>0&&splice@n,-2-$_,1}if(/n/){w 0;/ +-/\|\|w$_+7 *p while($_=index"htaoinse",$C[$n++])<7}$0=p,$_=p,w int$_/$0,$_%$0if/e +/;if(/t/) {$_=p;$_?$n=$L[$_-1]:last if p}/a/?w 1+grep$n>$_,@L:/o/?print chr p:/s +/?w-(p)+p :/i/?w+($_=getc)?ord:-1:0}` [download] Beg you for another 26 bytes, is it possible?
Re: last version by grinder (Bishop) on Feb 19, 2002 at 11:44 UTC
Down to 340 bytes: `map{push@L,@C+0;push@C,lc=~/./g}<>;sub p{pop@n}sub w{push@n,@_}while($ +n<@C){$_= $C[$n++];if(/h/){$_=p;w$n[-1-abs];$_>0&&splice@n,-2-$_,1}if(/n/){w 0;/ +-/\|\|w$_+7 p while($_=index"htaoinse",$C[$n++])<7}$0=p,$_=p,w int$_/$0,$_%$0if/e +/;if(/t/) {$_=p;$_?$n=$L[$_-1]:last if p}/a/?w 1+grep$n>$_,@L:/o/?print chr p:/s +/?w-(p)+p :/i/&&w($_=getc)?ord:-1}` [download] We can `s/last if p/p&&last/` and that brings it own to 338* bytes: `map{push@L,@C+0;push@C,lc=~/./g}<>;sub p{pop@n}sub w{push@n,@_}while($ +n<@C){$_= $C[$n++];if(/h/){$_=p;w$n[-1-abs];$_>0&&splice@n,-2-$_,1}if(/n/){w 0;/ +-/\|\|w$_+7 p while($_=index"htaoinse",$C[$n++])<7}$0=p,$_=p,w int$_/$0,$_%$0if/e +/;if(/t/) {$_=p;$_?$n=$L[$_-1]:p&&last}/a/?w 1+grep$n>$_,@L:/o/?print chr p:/s/? +w-(p)+p: /i/&&w($_=getc)?ord:-1}` [download] But wait, there's more! change `$0=p,$_=p,w int$_/$0,$_%$0` to `w int($_=p)/($0=p),$_%$0}` Which gives 337* (I think) bytes: `map{push@L,@C+0;push@C,lc=~/./g}<>;sub p{pop@n}sub w{push@n,@_}while($ +n<@C){$_= $C[$n++];if(/h/){$_=p;w$n[-1-abs];$_>0&&splice@n,-2-$_,1}if(/n/){w 0;/ +-/\|\|w$_+7 p while($_=index"htaoinse",$C[$n++])<7}w int($_=p)/($0=p),$_%$0if/e/; +if(/t/) {$_=p;$_?$n=$L[$_-1]:p&&last}/a/?w 1+grep$n>$_,@L:/o/?print chr p:/s/? +w-(p)+p: /i/&&w($_=getc)?ord:-1}` [download] A ternary operator can be replaced by a `&&` and the plus in `w+($_=getc)?ord:-1` trick is not needed, it works without (or, at least, hello.eta still outputs correctly). I have an idea it must be possible to replace the `w$_+7p while($_=index"htaoinse",$C[$n++])<7` section with a redo and/or a pos, but it is so difficult to understand what the program does I am beginning to wonder whether it wouldn't be easier to look at the instruction set and come up with another angle of attack. For instance, it would be nice to be able to do away with the @L array as well. Replace @C and @L by a hash that is keyed on byte offset and the value is the byte. print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u'	[reply] [d/l] [select]
1 byte by locked_user mtve (Deacon) on Feb 19, 2002 at 14:19 UTC
final `&&` is great! hate to disappoint you, i see some op-precedence problems on other suggestions: `$_?$n=$L[$_-1]:p&&last` doesn't work cause "`&&`" is higher than "`?:`" `int($_=p)/($0=p),$_%$0` is wrong, needed "`int`" of "`/`" not vice versa `w($_=getc)?ord:-1` is wrong, needed "`w`" of "`?:`" not vice versa