whereas running the same code with the input EEEEEEFDCEEEEBGCFDCECEEEEBBGCEEFDCEHBG (transliterated from this answerthis answer) prints:
replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/
whereas running the same code with the input EEEEEEFDCEEEEBGCFDCECEEEEBBGCEEFDCEHBG (transliterated from this answer) prints:
whereas running the same code with the input EEEEEEFDCEEEEBGCFDCECEEEEBBGCEEFDCEHBG (transliterated from this answer) prints:
Edit: I later realized that there's a major difference between the language I implement above and real Brainf*ck: in my language, the loop condition is checked at the end of the loop, rather than at the beginning, which means that every loop executes at least once. In effect, loops in my language behave like do–while loops in C-ish languages, whereas those in normal BF behave like plain while loops.
As it happens, the difference doesn't matter for the example program above, since all its loops run at least once anyway. What I'm not quite sure about is whether the proof of BF's Turing-completeness can still be made to apply to my variant of the language or not. It might be possible, but it's going to be tricky without any easy way to implement an if statement.
I suppose I could fix my program to behave more like normal BF, but it would be a pain in the ass to do without a major redesign of the execution model. :(
Edit: I later realized that there's a major difference between the language I implement above and real Brainf*ck: in my language, the loop condition is checked at the end of the loop, rather than at the beginning, which means that every loop executes at least once. In effect, loops in my language behave like do–while loops in C-ish languages, whereas those in normal BF behave like plain while loops.
As it happens, the difference doesn't matter for the example program above, since all its loops run at least once anyway. What I'm not quite sure about is whether the proof of BF's Turing-completeness can still be made to apply to my variant of the language or not. It might be possible, but it's going to be tricky without any easy way to implement an if statement.
I suppose I could fix my program to behave more like normal BF, but it would be a pain in the ass to do without a major redesign of the execution model. :(
Notes on the BF implementation:
The tape is single-ended, with the read/write head starting at cell 0. Moving the head to a negative position might not cause an error, but will produce weird effects related to Perl's array indexing and should be considered undefined behavior.
Cell values do not wrap around. Technically, each cell is stored as a double, meaning that at some point the value will saturate and further inc/decrements will have no effect. You'll die of boredom before that happens, though.
Character I/O depends on Perl's I/O layers. By default, input values are unsigned bytes, and attempting to output values outside the range 0 – 255 gives a warning message. Passing the
-CSswitch to Perl will enable Unicode I/O (encoded as UTF-8), though. Input at EOF yields a zero. To supply both a program and its input on stdin, separate them with a Ctrl+D character ("\cD"or"\x05").
Notes on the BF implementation:
The tape is single-ended, with the read/write head starting at cell 0. Moving the head to a negative position might not cause an error, but will produce weird effects related to Perl's array indexing and should be considered undefined behavior.
Cell values do not wrap around. Technically, each cell is stored as a double, meaning that at some point the value will saturate and further inc/decrements will have no effect. You'll die of boredom before that happens, though.
Character I/O depends on Perl's I/O layers. By default, input values are unsigned bytes, and attempting to output values outside the range 0 – 255 gives a warning message. Passing the
-CSswitch to Perl will enable Unicode I/O (encoded as UTF-8), though. Input at EOF yields a zero. To supply both a program and its input on stdin, separate them with a Ctrl+D character ("\cD"or"\x05").
Loading