4 ms·
I think that's probably just because it's been revised and the placeholders were added after. To be fair, it only adds an extra 18 chars, taking it up to 238-b
by aidos 9y ago
I think that's probably just because it's been revised and the placeholders were added after.
To be fair, it only adds an extra 18 chars, taking it up to 238-byte in size.
EDIT Here it is once you add the extra property:
(o=b=>{for(j in a)for(i in a)y=a[i]+-~j,b?document.write([["<p>"][i]]+"<input onfocus=value=[o[id]] onblur=o[id]=value;o() id="+y+" placeholder="+y+">"):eval(y+(".value"+o[y]).replace(/[A-Z]\d/g," +$&.value"))})(a="ABCD")
- jahnu 9y agoI'm more concerned with the use of the symbol `b` to denote bytes instead of `B` :)
- abainbridge 9y agoYeah. A 220 bit spreadsheet would be impressive. Particularly the achievement of the source length not being a whole number of bytes.
- dheera 9y agoIf you include start and stop bits it works out.
- xem 9y agoYeah, sorry for the confusion. The placeholders and the compact style (no gutters) were added in the homepage for puerly aesthetic purposes, but these things take a lot of bytes without really adding functionnality, so we decided to not count them in the most golfed code. You can see a version with labels and localStorage persistence at the bottom of the page though. But thanks for your edit!