MartinBraendli2 wrote:

This might be “lawyering”. If so, pardon me and ignore.

In Tee++ the token ‘_’ tells the parser to instead of treating the next character as a function, get the alternative function of the next char. It behaves a bit like the key on TI-calculaters.
So “+” will get the sum of the two numbers on top of the stack, but “_+” will get the sum of the elements of a list.
Now not all functions have a 2nd function. If no function is found, the command is spit out as a kind of error message. So “_a” will produce the output “_a”. This is a Quine, but is it a Quine according to the challenge rules?

MartinBraendli2 wrote:

Ignore, too much lawyering

CodeLegend wrote:

MartinBraendli2 wrote:

This might be “lawyering”. If so, pardon me and ignore.

In Tee++ the token ‘_’ tells the parser to instead of treating the next character as a function, get the alternative function of the next char. It behaves a bit like the key on TI-calculaters.
So “+” will get the sum of the two numbers on top of the stack, but “_+” will get the sum of the elements of a list.
Now not all functions have a 2nd function. If no function is found, the command is spit out as a kind of error message. So “_a” will produce the output “_a”. This is a Quine, but is it a Quine according to the challenge rules?

Yes, it is. So is “_”, since it's purpose isn't to output itself. (as compared to 0, 1, 2, etc., which are meant to output themselves)
As dzaima's relies on an error, yours can too. It looks like you don't want this to be counted, but I do sanction it. I'll leave it up to you.

MartinBraendli2 wrote:

This might be “lawyering”. If so, pardon me and ignore.

In Tee++ the token ‘_’ tells the parser to instead of treating the next character as a function, get the alternative function of the next char. It behaves a bit like the key on TI-calculaters.
So “+” will get the sum of the two numbers on top of the stack, but “_+” will get the sum of the elements of a list.
Now not all functions have a 2nd function. If no function is found, the command is spit out as a kind of error message. So “_a” will produce the output “_a”. This is a Quine, but is it a Quine according to the challenge rules?
If so, “_” might also be a quine, since the parser actually reads two tokens ('_' and ). So technically, the Token ‘_’ in that case doesn't give out itself, but concatenate(“_”,“”), which just happens to be equal to itself.
Again, sorry if this is too much lawyering/ riding on technicalities.
Ignore, too much lawyering

CodeLegend wrote:

As per the rules defined by me earlier, “8” is actually a valid quine!

Jonathan50 wrote:

CodeLegend wrote:

As per the rules defined by me earlier, “8” is actually a valid quine!

You said “1” isn't though

dzaima wrote:

it really bugs me to not know whether my 99 bottles of x program has been accepted :L

CodeLegend wrote:

dzaima wrote:

it really bugs me to not know whether my 99 bottles of x program has been accepted :L

Sorry, forgot about it until just now. In my defense, your programs should be in the project's notes & credits…

EDIT: #666

It was a long battle, but I think that for most of you it was worth it. Even if you didn't win, you did something that few people have ever done - you created a programming language. Not just any language, but one designed to have short programs - which you made as well.
Without further rambling, here are the results:
1st place: MartinBraendli with Tee++
As the winner of ATC#5, you may now create ATC#6, or designate someone else to do so. You may also wear this medal in your signature.
2nd place: dzaima with BYTT. You may wear this medal in your signature.
3rd place: Random-man with Legar. You may wear this medal in your signature.

Rankings can be found here

Honorable mentions:
These Scratchers not just created a successful codegolfing language, but also created 10 (or more) successful programs to beat some rather tricky challenges. They may wear the ATC#5 ribbon in their signature with pride, if they wish.
MartinBraendli with 15/15 completed
dzaima with 13/15 completed
wizzwizz7 with 12/15 completed
Random-man with 11/15 completed
m99900 with 10/15 completed

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Yay, time to wait for the next ATC

Random-Man wrote:

I probably could've gotten 2nd if I had entered in something for all of my programs, but I guess ease of programming was important in this competition too!

MartinBraendli2 wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Yay, time to wait for the next ATC

ATC#6 will probably be out in about 8h (when i come back from school). Its not a Puzzle, but a competition, so you don't have to enter your submission very fast. The challenge will be called Robo Golf.

MartinBraendli2 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

Why are they all now golf related?

Sigton

Random-Man wrote:

Sigton wrote:

Why are they all now golf related?

Sigton

That's a bit of an exaggeration… if it is golf related, then it would only be the second out of six, but I believe, based on the image, @MartinBrandli2 means literally relating to the golf idea of getting a ball in a hole in as little pushes as possible, whereas this was a codegolf, relating only to golf in the sense that you want a low score…

CodeLegend wrote:

Yes, it is. So is “_”, since it's purpose isn't to output itself. (as compared to 0, 1, 2, etc., which are meant to output themselves)