
Underscore Pi (2017) - PortableCode
https://codeexplainer.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/underscore-pi/
======
igravious
In all its glory:

    
    
       #define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
       int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
       {
                   _-_-_-_
              _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
           _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
         _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
         _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
           _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
               _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
                   _-_-_-_
       }
    

Fierce! Unhinged! Cromulent! Kickass!

------
saagarjha
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to work in Clang because it doesn't support
the -traditional-cpp flag. Make sure that you're actually using GCC if you're
following along!

------
jerrre
> What would happen if you make the circle in the code bigger?

More precision?

------
swalladge
links to sources on ioccc.org:
[http://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c](http://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c) |
[http://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint](http://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint)

------
dang
We changed the title from "Underscore Pi – when M_PI from math.h is too
mainstream; IOCCC winning entry".

This is a fine HN submission, but please don't rewrite titles to editorialize!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
LambdaComplex
Could you maybe add something about it being an IOCCC winner back in? (I
generally read the comments first to decide if I want to read the article, and
I wasn't going to bother reading this until I saw it had something to do with
the IOCCC)

------
quietbritishjim
M_PI is not part of the C standard (it is part of Posix) so the title is
awkward.

~~~
jgtrosh
I agree it's awkward, but not because of M_PI being non-standard. If history
had lead to pi being defined in standard C, this code would still have been
interesting. The title is awkward because it talks more about M_PI than about
the content of the article.

~~~
quietbritishjim
I agree that the code is interesting. It was specifically the HN title I was
talking about, which is not even the title of the original article. Sorry if I
wasn't clear. Anyway, it's been updated now.

