added # which allows input to work as an argument to a command

[rexroni]

This pull request only adds one charcter of interpretation.

I put the # character under the "experimental" section of the README, since I feel that is a more appropriate place for it. There might very well be better ways to accomplish the same thing.

[aaronryank]

I'm going to need to modify this a bit, since I don't really like the idea of hardcoding #. The general idea is good, though.

[aaronryank]

if (c == '#') {
    execute(c,-1);
    c = input+'0';
}

^^ won't work if input is a two-digit number. Probably best to add a safety net such as:

if (input <= 7)
    c = input + '0';

Also, make sure c == '#' turns into c == L'#', we're using wide chars.

[rexroni]

When you say you don't really like hardcoding the # character, you mean you don't like the manual check for it before everything else?

I can't say that I do either, but really the sequence of R# would be one command nested within another, and that isn't really handled by the interpreter yet (understandably). It might be worth it / fun to write an interpreter that was more robust, but it would also probably be a lot of work. What do you think?

[aaronryank]

Well, it's not really the interpreter being non-robust that's the problem here, it's just Cubically's syntax itself doesn't quite support that.

Also, while I do like this idea, I don't want to use # as that would make Cubically rather incompatible with polyglots. (I like polyglots.) After I finish Cubically 2 (it's currently in beta and I want to get it out of beta before adding more things to the language), I'll add a character to Cubically's charset and implement it using that instead.

Btw, pretty much all I've got to do to get it out of beta is finish up the issue you opened.

[TehPers]

I like this idea, and I agree that another character could be added to Cubically's charset for this. I think something along the lines of a fancy looking x would work? The issue really is that RLUDFB treat arguments differently than all the operators.

[aaronryank]

I've taken your idea and implemented it using superscript and double-struck numbers. See my comment closing #9.