unforum

[WhatTheDilly-O]

[QUESTION] Computer Code/Widow Story Translation

[Shad0]

Re: [QUESTION] Computer Code/Widow Story Translation

[WhatTheDilly-O]

Another thing I noticed: for most of the snippets of code, the number of times

!attach
act | drop

occurs is equal to the number of other commands that occur. For example, take this piece of code:

net:
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop
!attach
act | drop

grope:
!probe primary sector
sec proc 1
!probe primary sector
sec proc 2
!probe primary sector
sec proc 3
!probe primary sector
sec proc 4
!probe primary sector
fail

surg:
!triage sec proc 1
fail
!triage sec proc 2
fail
!triage sec proc 3
fail
!triage sec proc 4
dmg unk

There are nine instances of "!attach act | drop" in this piece of code. Then there are five instances of "!probe" and four instances of "!triage". Also, the lines

!attach
act | store recurse

are always followed by other commands that are repeated identically at least once, as in this piece:

net:
!attach
act | store recurse

surg:
!reconst master-sector
mem broken>>dmg recurse
!reconst master-sector
proc frgm>>dmg recurse

Recurse means almost the same thing as repeat. So "act | store recurse" seems to be a shortcut for when the same action is going to be taken multiple times on the same object.

I think that, every time SPDR wants to take an action on another object, she must !attach to it, then act on it with any of the three tools, and then either drop the attachment or store it for reuse. (I envision the lines "!attach act" and a blinking curser while the action is being taken, before the "drop" or "store recurse" appears.)

I think it's pretty safe to say that the lines of code are organized by tool before they are organized chronologically. (The term for this is probably "magnitude of organization" or something. If you know, do tell.)

There are still a few pieces of code that don't quite fit with any of this. I find that a little troubling.

[LilSerf]

Awesome analysis, dillyo -- you gots to get registered on here

[trendwhore]

more of the flea...

[WhatTheDilly-O]

I am pretty much convinced by now that there is sense and logic to the entire set of computer code. I think it would be worth while to figure out everything that hasn't already been figured out, and it might answer some other questions for us.

I agree my changes to xnbomb's translation should probably be posted on the Wiki, but I don't really feel comfortable doing it myself. If someone else want's to do it for me, that would be cool. You might put my notes on "!attach act | drop" on there somewhere too.

Here's the link to my translation again: The Link to My Translation Again

[Roc]

I added my own computer Text / Widow's Journey comparison entry to the Wiki today.

I feel it has a better code/event correlation than the existing one, and has fewer gaps.

I also provide a summary of what I have deduced about the computer text commands/syntax/operators.

Feedback's appreciated.

[Atoner]

[WhatTheDilly-O]

I liked your analysis of this part of the code:

grope:
!probe master-sector
fail
!probe master-sector cmd proc
empty
!analyze magnetic
& si !extend
!spdr extend
si > magnetic
!probe master-sector cmd proc
master-sector

It actually makes some kind of sense now.

The operator definitions look pretty good too.

But I still think my translation is a little better, though. I guess I'll post it on the wiki when I get home. I'm starting to want my credit .

Maybe we should work on this together?

[Theq629]

Sapphire

[Shad0]

Re: Sapphire

[Theq629]

[Shad0]

Re: Sapphire

[CorSorei]

"So if !dsc means DiSCover or something like that, then how did SPDR discover tertiary sectors before secondary sectors? "

Maybe working through less important to more important sectors, kind of like working from the bottom up. Just a therory.

[Roc]

There weren't any dsc commands in phase 1 (when the widow's journey was revealed).

Whether I misunderstand what dsc stands for or not, those commands seem to correspond to the creation of our new pages.

unless of course the filenames are to be taken as code themselves, in which case I should append:

surg:
!store primary sec mem dmg 0 0
!store primary sec mem dmg 0 1
!store primary sec mem dmg 0 2
!store primary sec mem dmg 0 3
!store primary sec mem dmg 0 4

Which seems halfway reasonable by itself. But where do the dsc's tie in?