Readability depends on audience. And this is not the least readable C possible. See ioccc if you want examples of obfuscated C.
That said, there are a number of mechanical transformations that can help you, if you are uncomfortable with the format used in J's sources, you can use gcc -E, an editor and indent to re-arrange it into a more traditional format. And, of course, you can use most any text editor's search&replace feature. (But as far as I know, even emacs does not have a search&replace that follows C's naming and scoping rules for the scope of the search and replace. That's an feature which I have only seen in commercial tools.) -- Raul On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Blake McBride <bl...@mcbride.name> wrote: > ahh. I see. It appears they wrote C in the most APL-like way they > could -- slightly unfortunate. In general, C is very readable. They > succeeded in writing J in the least readable C possible. > > Having said this, however, I still really, really appreciate J, the > source availability of J, and those who made this possible!! > > Blake McBride > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Stefano Lanzavecchia <s...@apl.it> wrote: >>> Being a long-time C programmer (in addition to an old-time APL >>> programmer), I looked at the released source code to J701. It appears to >> me >>> that either the code was machine generated from some other source code or >>> it has been obfuscated. Is this true? >> >> Neither: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Incunabulum >> >> -- >> Stefano Lanzavecchia >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
