I feel like there's a way to build on this theme. I think this is the minimal version of the puzzle; I'd be glad to remove elements if it turns out I can.
previous attempt tried to use shifts to get 0.4 to 0.2 or 0.8 and multiplication to get -0.8, forgetting that the multiplication would also turn 0.4 into 0 along the way. oops. I got ratholed on the mathematical approach, but a very straightforward lookup table can get more done.
Reviewed-on: #14
Co-authored-by: Kistaro Windrider <kistaro@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: Kistaro Windrider <kistaro@gmail.com>
replace comparisons with bit math bullshit
integers in the range [0, 15] fit entirely in the bit mask 0x000F. integers out of that range will have at least one bit 0x0010 or higher, or will have the sign bit 0x8000 set. so to find out if one of two numbers is out of range [0, 15], we can check the bit mask of their bitwise or.
this saves tokens and cycles. it is also completely illegible. very in the spirit of Pico-8, I love it.
comment the bullshit
it needs it
packed crate representation
don't bother exploding crates into four bools, and then comparing them all individually to a bunch of conditions. absurd bit manipulation bullshit saves cycles and tokens. leaving a crate's movement rule represented as four bits means we can exploit our previous calculation of dx1 and dy1, which must each either be 0x0001 or 0x8FFF, and violently hammer them down to align with this bit-packed representation, giving this glorious little atrocity.
Fix crate math.
I forgot that -1 & 1 = 1 rather than 0 so all the bit math didn't work. But I can fix it with polynomial algebra! this is much better.
Save tokens on movemebnt checks
I promise this is mathematically equivalent-ish to the original. (0.2 and its multiples are nonterminating decimals in base 2, so there's a little jank when the negative shift right is a shift left.)
Trimming
Trim up redundant nil checks, sequential assignments that could be on a shared line, and repeated references to a deeply nested variable.
Reviewed-on: #13
Co-authored-by: Kistaro Windrider <kistaro@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: Kistaro Windrider <kistaro@gmail.com>
Rope rewrite, part one
We should only care about anchors on the old path
Add comment expressing uncertainty
Add further algo notes
One final note
Well, this is closer to right!!
Elide points as needed
Save current changes
First version I couldn't immediately break
Everything _seems_ to work
Clean up some residual messes
Tidy up more loose ends
Co-authored-by: Nyeogmi <economicsbat@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: #11
