Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by tgv on Sunday December 24, 2023 @09:12AM
(#38753566)
Are those consts really necessary? There are also a few character missing after char *d.
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by junon on Sunday December 24, 2023 @09:24AM
(#38753645)
which characters are missing?
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by huhtenberg on Sunday December 24, 2023 @10:03AM
(#38753882)
"]=" after "*d["
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by junon on Sunday December 24, 2023 @10:18AM
(#38753992)
It's not necessary in C.
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by tgv on Sunday December 24, 2023 @12:30PM
(#38754998)
You should tell my compiler.
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by huhtenberg on Sunday December 24, 2023 @04:18PM
(#38756941)
const char *d[{"First","Second",...,"Twelf"};
is not a valid C unconditionally.
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by mananaysiempre on Monday December 25, 2023 @02:24AM
(#38760556)
> Are those consts really necessary?
Technically yes, initializing a plain char * from a const char * (from array decay) is a constraint violation (an error the standard requires the compiler to detect and complain about) even in C89. Many compilers will let you off with a warning though.
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod...
by huhtenberg on Sunday December 24, 2023 @10:09AM
(#38753920)
You can shave 25 more by using printf as is, removing "const", removing spaces between char and *, and removing parenthesis around "th".
And still 136 bytes off 431: