contributions:lol

I know VISIBLE is the current output command, but it's so not LOLCAT. What if we used LOL as the output instead? So, the Count-1 example becomes:

HAI
  CAN HAS STDIO?
  I HAS A NUMBAR
  IM IN YR LOOP
    UP NUMBAR!!1
    LOL NUMBAR!
    IZ NUMBAR BIGGER THAN 10 O RLY?
      YA RLY KTHXBYE
    KTHX
  IM OUTTA YR LOOP
KTHXBYE

I think this works very well, is funny to read and matches actual LOLCAT protocol, sorta. I guess the LOL would be at the end normally.

Also, it looks good if ! adds a CR/LF at the end. No !, no linefeed. — Risser, 2007/05/29 17:02

How about using LOL for assertions?

LOL VAR IZ 0

— sabik, 2007/05/29 17:40

I like LOL/BTW better than VISIBLE/INVISIBLE for a couple reasons; it's more lolcat and it's easier to type (not a prime consideration in a lang. like this, but not to be sneezed at either.)

For assertions we could use HAY!

HAY! VAR IZ 0

– Church Tucker, 2007/05/30 16:51

I agree with Church Tucker that LOL / BTW make for a good combination. LOL “U ATE MAH COOKIE! :(”

– shox, 2007/05/30 18:04 BST

I rather like the previous suggestion of LOL/HALP for VISIBLE/INVISIBLE, with BTW used for comment lines.

For assertions, how about

VAR IZ 1 AMIRITE?

– xrestassuredx, 2007/05/30 13:19

I don't agree with the original suggestion, because I'm not sure the author is recalling the reason for the INVISIBILE/VISIBLE meme.

– tyfighter, 2007/05/30/ 17:34

I like LOL as stdout, HALP as stderr and BTW as comments. Running INVISIBLE BIKE is ineffective, and should do something. Maybe variable scope…


CAN HAS STDIO?

I haz a bike, IZ 42
LOL "Muh bike is " N bike
btw prints "Muh bike is 42"

invisible bike

LOL "Muh bike is " N bike
btw prints "Muh bike is nothing"

IZ BIKE GONE?
     YA RLY
          btw doesn't happen
     NO WAI
          lol "Nigga stole my bike!"
     KTHX

visible bike

IZ BIKE GONE?
     YA RLY
          lol "My bike, it is happy"
     NO WAI
          btw doesn't happen
     KTHX

KTHXBAI

— GMan003, 2007/05/30 17:49

I propose LOL as the block terminator. It seems that in common l337 parlance, the term “lol” is used as punctuation, most commonly as a period, e.g. “how r u doin lol”, “im fien lol”. It stands to reason that blocks should follow the same convention.

Consecutive LOLs can then be concatenated as follows:

IM IN UR LOOP
  IM IN UR LOOP
    ...
  LOL
LOL

becomes

IM IN UR LOOP
  IM IN UR LOOP
    ...
LOLOL

Notice how this encourages consistent two-character indention, as LOLOL…OL lines up with the equivalent number of LOLs.

— Geordan Rosario, 2007/05/30 18:44

I like the LOLOL concept. How about also having one keyword that will roll up all open blocks at once. Sure, it makes the code less readable and maintainable, but it would be a good use of ROTFLOL! — Isaac, 2007/05/30 18:53

I still rather use LOL for the current VISIBLE, but I must say I'm intrigued by the LOLOL… terminator. — Church Tucker, 2007/05/30 18:57

Isn't woot a better choice for output?

WOOT "lol"

— Marius, 2007/05/30 19:26

  W00T "lolcode rulerz"

I agree that VISIBLE isn't ideal because it's going to be used infinitely more often than INVISIBLE, which doesn't follow the meme.

On the other hand, BTW has to remain used for comments because it reads so great. If there's a consensus on keeping KTHX for block termination, then LOL is fine - but W00T is a great idea.

And I'd be fine with having INVISIBLE for debug and no use for VISIBLE. Although it's kinda sad to have the most important lolcat meme be used for something that the user never sees. Wait, no, it actually makes sense I guess.

— Garoo, 2007/05/31

I originally was in favor of LOL for output, but I agree that the LOL/LOLOL block closing is ingenius. I also agree with the comments made that it's not necessary to have a fixed keyword (like KTHX) to close all blocks, and in fact having different closings for different blocks could add to the charm of the language.

With that in mind, I now favor using WOOT for standard output. LOL (and the awesome LOLOL.. words) could be used for closing blocks of all kinds, in addition to the block-specific closing statements. I'll add my thoughts there to the discussions for the different loops and blocks.

– xrestassuredx 2007/05/30

Using L(OL)+ to terminate blocks is brilliant. It's practical and would really add to the unique syntax of the language.

– cheesechoker, 2007/06/28 01:59

contributions/lol.txt · Last modified: 2007/06/28 02:05 by cheesechoker