On Dec 4, 11:37 pm, Madhu wrote:
> * jvt <5e1f79ab-5432-4f18-b896-362b7406c...@i18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:34:53 -0800 (PST):
>
> |
> | I think this is correct:
> |
> |
> | (defun unknown-function (sym0)
> | (let (sym1 sym2)
> | (while (or sym2 sym0)
> |
On Dec 5, 9:13 am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 3:34 am, jvt wrote:
>
> > I think this is correct:
>
> > (defun unknown-function (sym0)
> > (let (sym1 sym2)
> > (while (or sym2 sym0)
> > (if sym0
> > (if (consp sym0)
> >
On Dec 5, 3:34 am, jvt wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:49 pm, Barb Knox wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <46365e1d-42d8-4b3b-8e69-941472467...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > small Pox wrote:
>
> > > Rules :
>
> > No need to add any additional hurdles -- the code as presented is
> > thoroughly unrea
On Dec 4, 4:49 pm, Barb Knox wrote:
> In article
> <46365e1d-42d8-4b3b-8e69-941472467...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> small Pox wrote:
>
> > Rules :
>
> No need to add any additional hurdles -- the code as presented is
> thoroughly unreadable by humans.
>
> > @1@ No execution of the functio
In article
<46365e1d-42d8-4b3b-8e69-941472467...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
small Pox wrote:
> Rules :
No need to add any additional hurdles -- the code as presented is
thoroughly unreadable by humans.
> @1@ No execution of the function, only checking syntax
What about "desk checking"
Rules :
@1@ No execution of the function, only checking syntax
@2@ No profiling using a debugger or profiler
@3@ Editing allowed to make simpler variables
(defun unknown-function (nano-thermite-911-FBI-fat-per-diem-bustards-
kept-their-odious-mouth-shut-on-anthrax-and-911-lie)
(let (BERNA
