mirror/ioccc
1
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

force use of pandoc version >= 3.1.12.2

Browse Source 
The `bin/pandoc-wrapper.sh` tool will verify that the ssytem
has a recent enough version of `pandoc(1)`.

We explain why we insist on `pandoc(1)`. version >= 3.1.12.2
in comments where the $PANDOC_MIN_VERSION is set.

Added `--wrap=preserve` as a default argument to `pandoc(1)`.
While this change will impact every HTML file generated,
we believe this will improve the ability of someone to look
at the generated HTML and correlate with the original markdown.

Changed `bin/pandoc-wrapper.sh` VERSION from "1.4.2 2024-03-17"
to "1.4.3 2024-03-18".

Performed `make www` to achieve all of the above and to generate
HTML using the new  `--wrap=preserve` `pandoc(1)` mode.
This commit is contained in:
Landon Curt Noll committed 2024-03-18 01:26:39 -07:00
1 parent 9eb7a54e9f
commit b0b212acb1
402 files changed
+37061 -55132
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

1998/fanf/index.html
+170 -220
View File
@@ -130,8 +130,7 @@
<h2 id="author"><a name="author"></a>Author:</h2>
<ul>
<li>Name: <a href="../../authors.html#Tony_Finch">Tony Finch</a><br>
Location: <a href="../../location.html#GB">GB</a> - <em>United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland</em> (<em>United Kingdom</em>)
Location: <a href="../../location.html#GB">GB</a> - <em>United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland</em> (<em>United Kingdom</em>)
<br><br></li>
</ul>
@@ -147,38 +146,35 @@ this entry because of the system resources it requires.</p>
<h2 id="to-use">To use:</h2>
<div class="sourceCode" id="cb2"><pre class="sourceCode sh"><code class="sourceCode bash"><span id="cb2-1"><a href="#cb2-1" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="-1"></a><span class="ex">./fanf</span></span></code></pre></div>
<h2 id="try">Try:</h2>
<p>Enter an expression on standard input. To try some we have
selected:</p>
<p>Enter an expression on standard input. To try some we have selected:</p>
<div class="sourceCode" id="cb3"><pre class="sourceCode sh"><code class="sourceCode bash"><span id="cb3-1"><a href="#cb3-1" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="-1"></a><span class="ex">./try.sh</span></span></code></pre></div>
<h2 id="judges-remarks">Judges’ remarks:</h2>
<h3 id="historical-aside">Historical aside:</h3>
<p>At a time the code in <a href="fanf.c">fanf.c</a> was that of <a
href="fanf.orig.c">fanf.orig.c</a> but to get this to compile in modern
systems it had to be translated to what you now see. The intermediate
steps can still be performed but they might be different from the past.
This should be kept in mind as you read the below remarks.</p>
<p>At a time the code in <a href="fanf.c">fanf.c</a> was that of <a href="fanf.orig.c">fanf.orig.c</a>
but to get this to compile in modern systems it had to be translated to what you
now see. The intermediate steps can still be performed but they might be
different from the past. This should be kept in mind as you read the below
remarks.</p>
<p>This program translates lambda expressions into combinator
expressions. But you do not need to know Lambda Calculus to be impressed
by this program!</p>
<p>See the file <a href="fanf.lambda">fanf.lambda</a> for more examples
of lambda calculus source.</p>
<p>Notice how large the code grows from the <a href="fanf.c">fanf.c</a>
into the final <code>fanftmp2.c</code> C program. Take a look at that
final C program again, can you begin to understand what it is doing?</p>
<p>Look at the first stage of the C pre-processing which was done
like:</p>
expressions. But you do not need to know Lambda Calculus to be
impressed by this program!</p>
<p>See the file <a href="fanf.lambda">fanf.lambda</a> for more examples of lambda calculus
source.</p>
<p>Notice how large the code grows from the <a href="fanf.c">fanf.c</a> into the final
<code>fanftmp2.c</code> C program. Take a look at that final C program again,
can you begin to understand what it is doing?</p>
<p>Look at the first stage of the C pre-processing which was done like:</p>
<div class="sourceCode" id="cb4"><pre class="sourceCode sh"><code class="sourceCode bash"><span id="cb4-1"><a href="#cb4-1" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="-1"></a><span class="fu">cc</span> fanf.c <span class="at">-E</span> <span class="op">&gt;</span> fanftmp1.c</span></code></pre></div>
<p>Skip to the bottom of <code>fanftmp1.c</code> (after all of the C
pre-processor header stuff … look for a line of the form:
<code># 38 "fanf.c"</code> near the bottom) and look at the resulting
code. This code, when C pre-processed will expand into over 342 times
the original code (ignoring <code>#include</code> headers) to produce
<code>fanftmp2.c</code>. That program in turn, when compiled translates
a single lambda expression on standard input into combinator expressions
on standard output.</p>
<p>Skip to the bottom of <code>fanftmp1.c</code> (after all of the C pre-processor header
stuff … look for a line of the form: <code># 38 "fanf.c"</code> near the bottom)
and look at the resulting code. This code, when C pre-processed
will expand into over 342 times the original code (ignoring <code>#include</code>
headers) to produce <code>fanftmp2.c</code>. That program in turn, when compiled
translates a single lambda expression on standard input into
combinator expressions on standard output.</p>
<h3 id="extra-credit-question">Extra credit question:</h3>
<p>What do you have to do to make this program work with an old non-ANSI
C preprocessor?</p>
<p>What do you have to do to make this program work with an old non-ANSI C
preprocessor?</p>
<h2 id="authors-remarks">Author’s remarks:</h2>
<p>My program is a demonstration of some practical applications of
theoretical computer science. The application it implements is a program
@@ -186,33 +182,28 @@ for translating lambda expressions into combinator expressions.</p>
<h3 id="what-the-program-does">What the program does</h3>
<p>The syntax of lambda expressions recognised by the program is as
follows: The basic atoms are variables which are single characters other
than backslash or parentheses, e.g. <code>a</code> or <code>b</code> or
<code>@</code>. Variables are combined by function application which is
written as e.g. <code>(f a)</code> which is the function <code>f</code>
applied to the argument <code>a</code>. Application groups to the left,
so <code>(f a b c)</code> is equivalent to <code>(((f a) b) c)</code>.
Functions are created from lambda terms which are written in the form
<code>\a(expr)</code> which is the function taking argument
<code>a</code> and having value <code>expr</code>. Lambda is spelt
<code>\</code> because ASCII isn’t good enough. Lambda binds tightly, so
<code>\a\bcd</code> is equivalent to <code>((\a(\b(c))) d)</code>.
Whitespace is ignored.</p>
<p>For example, the identity function, called <code>I</code>, is written
<code>\x(x)</code>. A simple expression is <code>(I a)</code> which is
equivalent to <code>(\x(x) a)</code>, which has the value
<code>a</code>. Another function called <code>K</code> is defined as
<code>\x\y(x)</code> and it evaluates as follows:</p>
than backslash or parentheses, e.g. <code>a</code> or <code>b</code> or <code>@</code>. Variables are
combined by function application which is written as e.g. <code>(f a)</code> which is
the function <code>f</code> applied to the argument <code>a</code>. Application groups to the
left, so <code>(f a b c)</code> is equivalent to <code>(((f a) b) c)</code>. Functions are
created from lambda terms which are written in the form <code>\a(expr)</code> which
is the function taking argument <code>a</code> and having value <code>expr</code>. Lambda is
spelt <code>\</code> because ASCII isn’t good enough. Lambda binds tightly, so
<code>\a\bcd</code> is equivalent to <code>((\a(\b(c))) d)</code>. Whitespace is ignored.</p>
<p>For example, the identity function, called <code>I</code>, is written <code>\x(x)</code>. A
simple expression is <code>(I a)</code> which is equivalent to <code>(\x(x) a)</code>, which
has the value <code>a</code>. Another function called <code>K</code> is defined as <code>\x\y(x)</code>
and it evaluates as follows:</p>
<pre><code> K p q
-&gt; \x\y(x) p q
-&gt; \y(p) q
-&gt; p</code></pre>
<p>Another function of interest is <code>S</code>, defined as
<code>\f\g\x((f x) (g x))</code>. My program demonstrates the fact that
any lambda expression can be translated into an equivalent “combinator
expression” which involves only <code>S</code>, <code>K</code>,
<code>I</code> (the combinators), and application, with no variables or
lambda abstractions. In fact, even <code>I</code> is unnecessary, since
it is equivalent to <code>S K K</code>:</p>
<p>Another function of interest is <code>S</code>, defined as <code>\f\g\x((f x) (g x))</code>.
My program demonstrates the fact that any lambda expression can be
translated into an equivalent “combinator expression” which involves
only <code>S</code>, <code>K</code>, <code>I</code> (the combinators), and application, with no
variables or lambda abstractions. In fact, even <code>I</code> is unnecessary,
since it is equivalent to <code>S K K</code>:</p>
<pre><code> I z
-&gt; \a(a) z
-&gt; z
@@ -234,9 +225,8 @@ variables.</p>
<pre><code>abs a f x -&gt; S (abs a f) (abs a x)
abs a b -&gt; K b (b != a)
abs a a -&gt; I</code></pre>
<p>E.g. suppose we had combinator expressions for <code>+</code> and
<code>3</code> and we wanted to see what the combinator expression for
doubling 3 looked like:</p>
<p>E.g. suppose we had combinator expressions for <code>+</code> and <code>3</code> and we wanted
to see what the combinator expression for doubling 3 looked like:</p>
<pre><code> trans \x(+ x x) 3
-&gt; (trans \x(+ x x)) (trans 3)
-&gt; (abs x (trans + x x)) 3
@@ -252,128 +242,113 @@ doubling 3 looked like:</p>
-&gt; + (I 3) (I 3)
-&gt; + 3 3</code></pre>
<p>It is possible to perform a slightly more compact translation with a
couple of simple optimisations. For example, note that
<code>K (a b)</code> is the same as <code>S (K a) (K b)</code>,
because</p>
couple of simple optimisations. For example, note that <code>K (a b)</code> is the
same as <code>S (K a) (K b)</code>, because</p>
<pre><code> K (a b) x
-&gt; a b</code></pre>
<p>and</p>
<pre><code> S (K a) (K b) x
-&gt; K a x (K b x)
-&gt; a b</code></pre>
<p>Also, <code>S (K a) I</code> is the same as just <code>a</code>
because</p>
<p>Also, <code>S (K a) I</code> is the same as just <code>a</code> because</p>
<pre><code> S (K a) I x
-&gt; K a x (I x)
-&gt; a x</code></pre>
<p>The program simply reads a lambda expression from the standard input,
translates it into a combinator expression using the transformation and
optimisations described above, and prints out the result.</p>
<h3 id="why-this-is-a-practical-application">Why this is a practical
application</h3>
<h3 id="why-this-is-a-practical-application">Why this is a practical application</h3>
<p>Combinator expressions are easier to evaluate than lambda expressions
because there are no problems with variables. For example, if I naively
evaluated the expression <code>\x\y(x y) y</code> I might get
<code>\y(y y)</code> which is not the same as the correct result because
the first <code>y</code> in the body should refer to a global
<code>y</code> rather than the local one. David Turner was the first
person to realise that because of this fact, SK combinators provide a
simple way to implement non-strict functional programming languages,
either in software or directly in hardware.</p>
<p>My program demonstrates this by being based on a combinator
evaluation engine which is used to implement a language called
<code>OFL</code> (pronounced like “offal” and short for “Obfuscated
Functional Language”). I then used <code>OFL</code> to implement all the
high-level functionality described above. This contributes a lot to the
obfuscation because even small amounts of <code>OFL</code> are quite
unpalatable, and large expressions are completely incomprehensible.</p>
evaluated the expression <code>\x\y(x y) y</code> I might get <code>\y(y y)</code> which is
not the same as the correct result because the first <code>y</code> in the body
should refer to a global <code>y</code> rather than the local one. David Turner was
the first person to realise that because of this fact, SK combinators
provide a simple way to implement non-strict functional programming
languages, either in software or directly in hardware.</p>
<p>My program demonstrates this by being based on a combinator evaluation
engine which is used to implement a language called <code>OFL</code> (pronounced
like “offal” and short for “Obfuscated Functional Language”). I then
used <code>OFL</code> to implement all the high-level functionality described above.
This contributes a lot to the obfuscation because even small amounts of
<code>OFL</code> are quite unpalatable, and large expressions are completely
incomprehensible.</p>
<p>It is fairly well known that the lambda calculus (and hence SK
combinators) can compute anything, but mere computation is no use if you
cannot communicate with the world. This is why <code>OFL</code> includes
a few concessions to reality: a combinator <code>E</code> for
representing characters and testing them for equality, two I/O
combinators, <code>G</code> and <code>P</code>, for reading and writing
characters respectively, and a combinator <code>J</code> for
representing <code>false</code>. I also implemented the <code>Y</code>
combinator directly rather than in terms of the primitive combinators,
since it only required five characters to do so
(viz. <code>Y W q Q g</code>). However this code is not enabled because
the definition of <code>Y</code> in terms of other combinators is more
cute.</p>
<p>The <code>E</code> combinator comes in a large number of forms, one
for each character and one for end of file. It is written
<code>E(c)</code> for the variant of <code>E</code> corresponding to the
character <code>c</code>. An expression of the form <code>E(c) x</code>
is evaluated by first evaluating <code>x</code>. If <code>x</code>
doesn’t evaluate to some form of <code>E</code>, then evaluation of the
expression terminates. If <code>x</code> evaluates to <code>E(c)</code>,
then the expression evaluates to <code>K</code>. If <code>x</code>
evaluates to <code>E(d)</code> (where <code>d</code> is a different
character to <code>c</code>), then the expression evaluates to
<code>J</code>.</p>
<p><code>K</code> and <code>J</code> are used to represent
<code>true</code> and <code>false</code> respectively; they correspond
exactly to the standard lambda calculus representations of
<code>true</code> and <code>false</code>, viz. <code>\t\f(t)</code> and
<code>\t\f(f)</code> respectively. In this way a conditional expression
can just be written <code>cond then else</code>, which is even more
terse than C <code>cond ? then : else</code>. An expression that
compares a character with <code>a</code>, say, can be written in the
rather obfuscated form <code>E('a') char then else</code>.</p>
<p>The <code>P</code> combinator, like the <code>E</code> combinator,
starts off by evaluating its first argument and checking that it is some
form of <code>E</code>. It then writes that character on
<code>stdout</code>, and finally it calls its second argument as a
function with the argument <code>I</code>, i.e.</p>
cannot communicate with the world. This is why <code>OFL</code> includes a few
concessions to reality: a combinator <code>E</code> for representing characters and
testing them for equality, two I/O combinators, <code>G</code> and <code>P</code>, for reading
and writing characters respectively, and a combinator <code>J</code> for
representing <code>false</code>. I also implemented the <code>Y</code> combinator directly
rather than in terms of the primitive combinators, since it only
required five characters to do so (viz. <code>Y W q Q g</code>). However this code
is not enabled because the definition of <code>Y</code> in terms of other combinators
is more cute.</p>
<p>The <code>E</code> combinator comes in a large number of forms, one for each
character and one for end of file. It is written <code>E(c)</code> for the variant
of <code>E</code> corresponding to the character <code>c</code>. An expression of the form
<code>E(c) x</code> is evaluated by first evaluating <code>x</code>. If <code>x</code> doesn’t evaluate
to some form of <code>E</code>, then evaluation of the expression terminates. If
<code>x</code> evaluates to <code>E(c)</code>, then the expression evaluates to <code>K</code>. If <code>x</code>
evaluates to <code>E(d)</code> (where <code>d</code> is a different character to <code>c</code>), then
the expression evaluates to <code>J</code>.</p>
<p><code>K</code> and <code>J</code> are used to represent <code>true</code> and <code>false</code> respectively; they
correspond exactly to the standard lambda calculus representations of
<code>true</code> and <code>false</code>, viz. <code>\t\f(t)</code> and <code>\t\f(f)</code> respectively. In this way a
conditional expression can just be written <code>cond then else</code>, which is
even more terse than C <code>cond ? then : else</code>. An expression that
compares a character with <code>a</code>, say, can be written in the rather
obfuscated form <code>E('a') char then else</code>.</p>
<p>The <code>P</code> combinator, like the <code>E</code> combinator, starts off by evaluating
its first argument and checking that it is some form of <code>E</code>. It then
writes that character on <code>stdout</code>, and finally it calls its second
argument as a function with the argument <code>I</code>, i.e.</p>
<pre><code>P x f -&gt; f I</code></pre>
<p>with a side-effect.</p>
<p>The <code>G</code> combinator just reads a character from
<code>stdin</code> then calls its argument as a function with the
appropriate <code>E</code> combinator as an argument, i.e.</p>
<p>The <code>G</code> combinator just reads a character from <code>stdin</code> then calls its
argument as a function with the appropriate <code>E</code> combinator as an
argument, i.e.</p>
<pre><code>G f -&gt; f E(c)</code></pre>
<p>with a side-effect.</p>
<p>One of the problems with non-strict languages is that it is hard to
predict in advance in which order side-effects will occur. In my program
I used a monadic I/O structure like that used by the programming
language Haskell; this allows one to write programs that manipulate
external state in a manner remarkably similar to imperative programming
languages like C. An examination of my program should provide an
illustration of how well this technique works in practice. (In
particular, I used the CPS form of the I/O monad from page 6 of
“Imperative Functional Programming”.)</p>
<p>The <code>Y</code> combinator is used for implementing recursive
functions. It has the evaluation rule</p>
I used a monadic I/O structure like that used by the programming language
Haskell; this allows one to write programs that manipulate external
state in a manner remarkably similar to imperative programming languages
like C. An examination of my program should provide an illustration of
how well this technique works in practice. (In particular, I used the
CPS form of the I/O monad from page 6 of “Imperative Functional
Programming”.)</p>
<p>The <code>Y</code> combinator is used for implementing recursive functions. It has
the evaluation rule</p>
<pre><code>Y f -&gt; f (Y f)</code></pre>
<p>so that it can be used to call a function with itself as an argument.
For example, if I had the appropriate arithmetic operators defined, I
could write a factorial function in the lambda calculus like this:</p>
<pre><code>Y \f\n((= n 0) 1 (* n (f (- n 1))))</code></pre>
<p><code>OFL</code> provides a facility for naming expressions so that
they can be used more than once without writing them in full. A
definition must be written on one line in the form
<code>l name b expression</code> where <code>l</code> is short for “let”
and <code>b</code> is short for “be”. Names must be more than one
character long. A complete <code>OFL</code> program starts off by
defining the primitives it will use with likes of the form
<code>p (S)</code> etc., then goes on to define the names it will use,
and finishes off with the main expression followed by a single
<code>e</code> short for “end”. <code>OFL</code> expressions must use
the minimum number of brackets needed to be unambiguous, except that the
whole expression must be surrounded by brackets.</p>
<p><code>OFL</code> has a standard library which adds another five
combinators to the basic eight. These combinators provide greater scope
for optimisation when translating an expression from the lambda calculus
to combinators, and therefore more compact programs. Their evaluation
rules are:</p>
<p><code>OFL</code> provides a facility for naming expressions so that they can be used
more than once without writing them in full. A definition must be written
on one line in the form <code>l name b expression</code> where <code>l</code> is short for
“let” and <code>b</code> is short for “be”. Names must be more than one character
long. A complete <code>OFL</code> program starts off by defining the primitives it
will use with likes of the form <code>p (S)</code> etc., then goes on to define the
names it will use, and finishes off with the main expression followed by
a single <code>e</code> short for “end”. <code>OFL</code> expressions must use the minimum
number of brackets needed to be unambiguous, except that the whole
expression must be surrounded by brackets.</p>
<p><code>OFL</code> has a standard library which adds another five combinators to the
basic eight. These combinators provide greater scope for optimisation
when translating an expression from the lambda calculus to combinators,
and therefore more compact programs. Their evaluation rules are:</p>
<pre><code>B f g x -&gt; f (g x)
C f g x -&gt; (f x) g
BB c f g x -&gt; c (f (g x))
CC c f g x -&gt; c (f x) g
SS c f g x -&gt; c (f x) (g x)</code></pre>
<p>I used them to help fit my program into the required space;
unfortunately I couldn’t fit the version that fully optimises the lambda
expressions it reads into the required space. The complete optimisation
rules including the ones it doesn’t use are:</p>
<p>I used them to help fit my program into the required space; unfortunately
I couldn’t fit the version that fully optimises the lambda expressions
it reads into the required space. The complete optimisation rules
including the ones it doesn’t use are:</p>
<pre><code>S (K p) I -&gt; p
S (K p) (K r) -&gt; K ( p r )
S (K p) (B r s) -&gt; BB p r s
@@ -382,62 +357,58 @@ S (B p q) (K r) -&gt; CC p q r
S p (K r) -&gt; C p r
S (B p q) r -&gt; SS p q r
S p r -&gt; S p r</code></pre>
<h3 id="the-implementation-of-ofl">The implementation of
<code>OFL</code></h3>
<p>Although <code>OFL</code> has completely different syntax and
semantics to C, all you need to compile <code>OFL</code> programs is a C
compiler and a header file (which in my entry to the competition has
been included in-line). The header file implements a two-pass optimising
compiler which produces a representation of the program that is then
interpreted.</p>
<p>The first pass of the compiler is implemented via the C preprocessor.
It implements one optimisation, namely function in-lining.
Unfortunately, this optimisation always increases object code size and
execution time. The opposite optimisation, common sub-expression
elimination (which would offer improvements in code size and execution
time), has not been implemented. The output of this pass is a C program
that may be compiled by a normal C compiler.</p>
<h3 id="the-implementation-of-ofl">The implementation of <code>OFL</code></h3>
<p>Although <code>OFL</code> has completely different syntax and semantics to C, all you
need to compile <code>OFL</code> programs is a C compiler and a header file (which in
my entry to the competition has been included in-line). The header file
implements a two-pass optimising compiler which produces a representation
of the program that is then interpreted.</p>
<p>The first pass of the compiler is implemented via the C preprocessor. It
implements one optimisation, namely function in-lining. Unfortunately,
this optimisation always increases object code size and execution time.
The opposite optimisation, common sub-expression elimination (which
would offer improvements in code size and execution time), has not been
implemented. The output of this pass is a C program that may be compiled
by a normal C compiler.</p>
<p>The second pass is performed by the initialisation phase of the C
program. It builds a data structure representing the abstract syntax
tree of the program.</p>
<p>The program is then executed by an interpreter. This operates by
performing manipulations on the AST that correspond to the evaluation
rules of the combinators that I described above.</p>
<p>The first 54 lines of the program are mostly the interpreter; the
next 8 lines are pass one of the compiler; the next nine declare the
<code>OFL</code> primitives; the next five define the <code>OFL</code>
standard library; and the rest implement the application described in
the first part of this document. This part of the program is transformed
into the second pass of the compiler by the first pass of the
compiler.</p>
<p>The first pass of the compiler relies on some magic macros that
expand in a mutually-overlapping and almost recursive way in order to
<p>The first 54 lines of the program are mostly the interpreter; the next 8
lines are pass one of the compiler; the next nine declare the <code>OFL</code>
primitives; the next five define the <code>OFL</code> standard library; and the rest
implement the application described in the first part of this document.
This part of the program is transformed into the second pass of the
compiler by the first pass of the compiler.</p>
<p>The first pass of the compiler relies on some magic macros that expand
in a mutually-overlapping and almost recursive way in order to
perpetrate a complete change of syntax. Interestingly enough, if I
hadn’t used the same identifier for more than one thing in various
places in the program this transformation would work with old-style cpp
as well and ANSI cpp. It expands the program from about 2.2KB to about
740KB. The resulting code does some tricky stuff to build a data
structure of the same form as the code itself.</p>
<p>The interpreter is written in fairly straightforward C, although it
is highly compressed. The C itself is written in a fairly functional
style, in that every function consists of a single expression. In the
tradition of functional programming languages it assumes that memory is
infinite and so never frees anything. It also assumes that the C
compiler implements the tail recursion optimisation, which is probably
not true.</p>
<p>The interpreter is written in fairly straightforward C, although it is
highly compressed. The C itself is written in a fairly functional style,
in that every function consists of a single expression. In the tradition
of functional programming languages it assumes that memory is infinite
and so never frees anything. It also assumes that the C compiler
implements the tail recursion optimisation, which is probably not true.</p>
<h3 id="references">References</h3>
<p>I used these references in the course of writing this program and
they explain some of the ideas behind it in more detail. Arthur Norman
(one of the authors of the first paper) did a lot to enthuse me about
this topic.</p>
<p>I used these references in the course of writing this program and they
explain some of the ideas behind it in more detail. Arthur Norman (one
of the authors of the first paper) did a lot to enthuse me about this
topic.</p>
<p>Clarke, T. J. W., et al., 1980. SKIM - the S, K, I Reduction Machine.
Proceedings of the 1980 ACM LISP Conference, pp. 128-135.</p>
<p>Curry, H. B. and Feys, R., 1958. Combinatory Logic, Vol. 1.
North-Holland.</p>
<p>Gordon, M. J. C., 1988. Programming Language Theory and its
Implementation. Prentice-Hall.</p>
<p>Peterson, J, et al., 1997. Report on the Programming Language
Haskell, version 1.4.</p>
<p>Peterson, J, et al., 1997. Report on the Programming Language Haskell,
version 1.4.</p>
<p>Peyton Jones, S. L., 1987. The implementation of Functional
Programming Languages, Chapters 2, 11, 12, 16. Prentice-Hall.</p>
<p>Peyton Jones, S. L., and Wadler, P., 1992. Imperative Functional
@@ -445,62 +416,41 @@ Programming. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Principles of
Programming Languages 1993, pp. 71-84.</p>
<p>Turner, D. A., 1979. A new implementation technique for applicative
languages. Software- Practice and Experience. Vol. 9, pp. 31-49.</p>
<p>Turner, D. A., 1979. Another algorithm for bracket abstraction.
Journal of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 67-270.</p>
<p>Turner, D. A., 1979. Another algorithm for bracket abstraction. Journal
of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 67-270.</p>
<p>Wadler, P., 1990. Comprehending Monads. Proceedings of the ACM
conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, 1990.</p>
<p>Wadler, P., 1995. How to Declare an Imperative. Proceedings of the
ACM International Logic Programming Symposium, 1995.</p>
<h2 id="copyright-and-cc-by-sa-4.0-license">Copyright and CC BY-SA 4.0
License:</h2>
<p>This file is Copyright (c) 2023 by Landon Curt Noll. All Rights
Reserved. You are free to share and adapt this file under the terms of
this license:</p>
<p>Wadler, P., 1995. How to Declare an Imperative. Proceedings of the ACM
International Logic Programming Symposium, 1995.</p>
<h2 id="copyright-and-cc-by-sa-4.0-license">Copyright and CC BY-SA 4.0 License:</h2>
<p>This file is Copyright (c) 2023 by Landon Curt Noll. All Rights Reserved.
You are free to share and adapt this file under the terms of this license:</p>
<pre><code>Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)</code></pre>
<p>For more information, see:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</p>
<p>For more information, see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</p>
<!-- END: this line ends content for HTML phase 21 by: bin/pandoc-wrapper.sh via bin/md2html.sh -->
<!-- START: this line starts content for HTML phase 22 by: bin/output-index-inventory.sh via bin/md2html.sh -->
<!-- START: this line starts content generated by: bin/output-index-inventory.sh -->
<h1 id="inventory-for-1998fanf"><a name="inventory"></a>Inventory for
1998/fanf</h1>
<h1 id="inventory-for-1998fanf"><a name="inventory"></a>Inventory for 1998/fanf</h1>
<p><a href="#top">Jump to top</a></p>
<h2 id="primary-files">Primary files</h2>
<ul>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/fanf.c">fanf.c</a>
- entry source</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/Makefile">Makefile</a>
- entry Makefile</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/fanf.orig.c">fanf.orig.c</a>
- original source</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/try.sh">try.sh</a>
- how to run</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/fanf.lambda">fanf.lambda</a>
- lambda expressions</li>
<li><a href="1998_fanf.tar.bz2">1998_fanf.tar.bz2</a> - download entry
source</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/fanf.c">fanf.c</a> - entry source</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/Makefile">Makefile</a> - entry Makefile</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/fanf.orig.c">fanf.orig.c</a> - original source</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/try.sh">try.sh</a> - how to run</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/fanf.lambda">fanf.lambda</a> - lambda expressions</li>
<li><a href="1998_fanf.tar.bz2">1998_fanf.tar.bz2</a> - download entry source</li>
</ul>
<h2 id="secondary-files">Secondary files</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="index.html">index.html</a> - entry home page</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/.entry.json">.entry.json</a>
- description of entry in JSON</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/.gitignore">.gitignore</a>
- list of files that should not be committed under git</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/.entry.json">.entry.json</a> - description of entry in JSON</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/.gitignore">.gitignore</a> - list of files that should not be committed under git</li>
<li><a href=".path">.path</a> - directory path from top directory</li>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/README.md">README.md</a>
- markdown source for index.html</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/temp-test-ioccc/blob/master/1998/fanf/README.md">README.md</a> - markdown source for index.html</li>
</ul>
<!-- END: next line ends content generated by: bin/output-index-inventory.sh -->