Talk:DoubleFuck

Computational class, compiling into normal BF: must be more complicated than adding if the data pointer values are unknown. Of course, I don't argue that it's possible to compile DF into BF since BF is Turing-complete. Engelec 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is complicated; If the two looping constructs have to be properly nested WRT each other it's still mostly a text substitution operation. BUT nothing says that '[]' loops have to be nested nicely WRT '{}' loops; ie you can do this: "{ aaaa [ bbbb } cccc ]" at that point it gets interesting Rdebath (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case the conversion to prove TC-ness goes from BF to DoubleFuck. (Theoretically there is the opposite direction to consider, but it's shown by giving an interpreter for your language in any implementable language at all.) --Ørjan (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice that the relevant part was what had just been removed from the article. :) --Ørjan (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm :-) --- Related: This'll work for something useful for the mis-nesting: [ ccc [ ccc {\}{ ccc ] ccc ][-}] Rdebath (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)