3 ms·
Agreed; I was playing with pinwheel tilings [1] today and decided to make some pinwheel art [2] that fits in a signature: %!PS %
by tromp 5y ago
Agreed; I was playing with pinwheel tilings [1] today and decided to make some pinwheel art [2] that fits in a signature:
%!PS % -John Tromp http://tromp.github.io/
/t{dup 1 sub gsave dup 0 gt{[.4 .2 -.2 .4 .4 .2]concat t currentgray
.8 mul .2 add setgray -1 1 scale t -1 2 translate t 1 -1 scale t[0 1
1 0 0 2]concat t pop}{0 moveto 1 0 lineto 0 2 lineto closepath clip
fill}ifelse grestore}def 10 10 translate 600 600 scale 5 t showpage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinwheel_tiling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinwheel_tiling
[2] https://tromp.github.io/img/pinwheel.pdf https://tromp.github.io/img/pinwheel.pdf
- earleybird 5y agoApologies for being off-topic and possibly absurd question - could the binary lc be considered a concatenative language?
- tromp 5y ago(I would have expected this comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29630293#29631288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29630293#29631288 instead:-) No, Blc is not a concatenative language. It uses application rather than concatenation to combine programs, and its semantics is not described in terms of stack operations (the blc seld-interpreter happens to use a stack though).
- earleybird 5y agoI did see that comment but it was the postscript code you mentioned in your post which evoked concatenative question :-) I have, perhaps, a naïve internalisation of the reduction steps in something like Forth having the same shape as function application as an elimination step.
- mmcgaha 5y agoLovely example! Beautiful postscript makes me warm and fuzzy inside.