# How could the macro xii.tex be simplified into a better readable form

I was reading some TeX guides from where I have found this source:

\let~\catcode~76~A13~F1~j00~P2jdefA71F~7113jdefPALLF
PA''FwPA;;FPAZZFLaLPA//71F71iPAHHFLPAzzFenPASSFthP;A$$FevP A@@FfPARR717273F737271P;ADDFRgniPAWW71FPATTFvePA**FstRsamP AGGFRruoPAqq71.72.F717271PAYY7172F727171PA??Fi*LmPA&&71jfi Fjfi71PAVVFjbigskipRPWGAUU71727374 75,76Fjpar71727375Djifx :76jelse&U76jfiPLAKK7172F71l7271PAXX71FVLnOSeL71SLRyadR@oL RrhC?yLRurtKFeLPFovPgaTLtReRomL;PABB71 72,73:Fjif.73.jelse B73:jfiXF71PU71 72,73:PWs;AMM71F71diPAJJFRdriPAQQFRsreLPAI I71Fo71dPA!!FRgiePBt'el@ lTLqdrYmu.Q.,Ke;vz vzLqpip.Q.,tz; ;Lql.IrsZ.eap,qn.i. i.eLlMaesLdRcna,;!;h htLqm.MRasZ.ilk,% s;z zLqs'.ansZ.Ymi,/sx ;LYegseZRyal,@i;@ TLRlogdLrDsW,@;G LcYlaDLbJsW,SWXJW ree @rzchLhzsW,;WERcesInW qt.'oL.Rtrul;e doTsW,Wk;Rri@stW aHAHHFndZPpqar.tridgeLinZpe.LtYer.W,:jbye The text preceding the code is something like: TeX is a macro language and the meaning of existing commands can be changed on the fly, and also new commands can be dened on the fly [Knu84]. As perhaps the most extreme example of this is David Carlisle's xii.tex TeX code, which is obtainable as ftp://ctan.tug.org/tex-archive/macros/plain/contrib/xii.tex: Now my question is, how this so-called extreme example of macro could be simplified to be readable to the beginner TeX/LaTeX users? I have run the code through TeX and I was really surprised to see the result! One more basic question I do have: Could all TeX commands be used from any LaTeX file? EDIT With the answer from hendrik-vogt and the related answer from joseph-wright, I was trying to understand the obfuscated code. TeXifying the code after adding \traceall at the beginning gives perhaps useful information, but still quite stumbling blocks to me is something like: A71->~7113\def 71<-L {\catcode} {\def} That seems to me something like BF. Not very well, but still I am getting some hints what is going on behind the scene. Can someone help me what does the previous block of code means? - Hi Cylian, the whole point of that macro is to not be readable! The simplified version would simply be to type the resulting text. – Scott H. Mar 29 '13 at 6:52 I am pretty sure David would say that it is already simplified as much as can be. :-) – Peter Grill Mar 29 '13 at 6:52 @ScottH.: But, I like to on which basis these entire string was written? Is this code somehow like Java Bytecodes that only could be interpreted by the compiler? – Cylian Mar 29 '13 at 7:03 We were asked about another such document very early on in the life of the site: tex.stackexchange.com/q/2272. – Joseph Wright Mar 29 '13 at 7:37 I'm very hurt that people don't find my code readable:( Joseph has already given one link, and this came up a day or two ago and there are some links to other sites where this is described tex.stackexchange.com/questions/104248/… – David Carlisle Mar 29 '13 at 10:01 ## 3 Answers ## The short answer There are actually three levels of obfuscation in that code: Firstly, some clever recursive macros are used to compress the text to just a few lines. Secondly, some kind of substitution and transposition ciphers are implemented by rather straightforward macros like \defR#1#2#3{#3#2#1} (where R is an active character). The third level is the use of category codes to avoid intellegible TeX-specific characters like {, }, # and \. ## Some more explanations I saw this TeX file more that 10 years ago and thought Eh? So I tried to take it apart step by step. On the way I learned a lot about TeX's macro language, and also about category codes. To begin with, I'll only post the very first steps I took. (I still have the files on my computer, and this one is named hae.1, "hae" being German and meaning "eh?") \let~\catcode ~76 ~A13 ~F1 ~j00 ~P2 \defA#1{~#113\def} ALL{ } A''{w} A;;{} AZZ{LaL} A//#1{#1i} AHH{L} Azz{en} ASS{th}; A$${ev}     A@@{f}
ARR#1#2#3{#3#2#1};
Aqq#1.#2.{#1#2#1}                AYY#1#2{#2#1#1}
A??{i*Lm}   A&&#1\fi{\fi#1}      AVV{\bigskipR}WG
AUU#1#2#3#4 #5,#6{\par#1#2#3#5D\ifx:#6\else&U#6\fi}L
AKK#1#2{#1l#2#1}
ABB#1 #2,#3:{\if.#3.\else B#3:\fiX{#1}U#1 #2,#3:}Ws;
AMM#1{#1di}  AJJ{Rdri}  AQQ{RsreL}  AII#1{o#1d}  A!!{Rgie}
Bt'el@ lTLqdrYmu.Q.,Ke;vz vzLqpip.Q.,tz;
;Lql.IrsZ.eap,qn.i. i.eLlMaesLdRcna,;!;h htLqm.MRasZ.ilk,%
s\$;z zLqs'.ansZ.Ymi,/sx ;LYegseZRyal,@i;@ TLRlogdLrDsW,@;G
doTsW,Wk;Rri@stW aHAHH{ndZ}pqar.tridgeLinZpe.LtYer.W,:\bye

You see, I replaced F with { and P with } throughout. Why? ~F1 gives the character F category code 1 (since the active character ~ is \let to \catcode), and TeX understands such characters as opening braces. In the same way, P is given category code 2 by ~P2, so it acts as a closing brace.

The next thing is to understand ~76 and ~j00. The first makes 7 behave like the macro parameter character # (category code 6), and the second makes j behave like the control sequence character \ (category code 0), so I've replaced 7 with # and j with \ throughout. This enhances readability quite a bit already. Moreover, I added some white space and line breaks, which helps some more.

The key point now is to understand what A does. This is an "active character" (category code 13) due to ~A13, so it behaves like a control sequence. So what does the definition \defA#1{~#113\def} mean? A takes one argument #1. Then ~ acts as \catcode, so A gives it's argument category code 13, and then it issues an additional \def.

So how does this fit with the output of \tracingall you got? The first line

A71->~7113\def

says the following: To the left of -> you see that the active character A takes one argument #1 (recall that 7 acts as #); to the right of -> you see the corresponding expansion. Now the second line

71<-L

says that #1 should be substituted with L, so that the expansion is ~L13\def. Now ~ was \let to \catcode, so the category code assignment \catcodeL13 is performed next (making L an active character); then the \def is executed. This is what you see in the next two lines:

{\catcode}
{\def}

(Unfortunately \tracingall doesn't say anything specific about the execution of \catcode and \def.)

Let's look at the usage A''{w}. This expands to \catcode'13\def'{w}, so ' is made an active character, and it's given a definition, namely that ' should expand to w (one of the transposition ciphers)! Just one more example: A??{i*Lm} makes ? active and gives it the definition i*Lm, which in turn expands to istRsam m since * expands to stRsam and L to a space. The final result is istmas m since R acts as a transposition cipher, as mentioned in the very beginning. And now we're able to understand the little piece RrhC?y in the code – it expands to Christmas my!

## A challenge

If you remove all the cipher and catcode business, you just have some recursive macros that represent the text rather efficiently. Can anyone do it with less than 479 characters?

\let~\def~\U#1,#2:{\par#1ing \if.#2.\else\U#2:\fi}~\,{\def\,{and
}}~\;#1~#2 #3,#4:{\if.#4.\else\;#4:\fi\bigskip On the #1#2th day of
Christmas my true love gave to me\U#1#3,#4:}~~#1 {}\;twel~f ve drummers
drumm,eleven~ \ pipers pip,ten~ \ lords a leap,nin~ e ladies danc,eigh~
t maids a milk,seven~ \ swans a swimm,six~ \ geese a lay,fi~f ve gold
rings~,four~ \ calling birds~,th~ird\ ~ ree french hens~,~second\ ~ two
turtle doves~,~first\ ~ \,a partridge in a pear tree.~,:\bye
-
I really appreciate the approach. –  Cylian Mar 29 '13 at 7:28
Inspired by your helpful start, I started to decipher it myself, but somewhere around \def B it becomes too painful to follow. I salute you for your efforts! –  morbusg Mar 29 '13 at 13:22
@morbusg: B just does the recursion :-) –  Hendrik Vogt Mar 29 '13 at 17:33
Unputdownable! Wish I could vote it more than once! One question, could you tell me a book from where I could acquire some knowledge to learn this kind of tricks. Anyway, thank you very much for your help. –  Cylian Mar 30 '13 at 6:52

I think actually it is as simple as it can be already. It has two \ which is, I admit, rather complicated. I did try to simplify it so that it only had one, or even better no, backslash but I don't think that is possible.

-
By two backslashes, do you mean the \catcodej=00? I.e., why the second zero? –  morbusg Mar 29 '13 at 10:31
@morbusg: No, the code starts with \let~\, so the density of \ is rather high at the beginning :-) And the double 0 is just to get full justification of the code. –  Hendrik Vogt Mar 29 '13 at 10:37
@Hendrik: Ah, OK, thanks for the explanation. Haha this has to be sickest piece of code I have ever seen! I got over the A definition, but after that, I just keep shifting between looking at the input and looking at the output, and I can't help my mind exploding over and over again! Brain... hurts... –  morbusg Mar 29 '13 at 10:44
@HendrikVogt you don't want to know how long I spent trying to avoid that density:-) –  David Carlisle Mar 29 '13 at 10:52
@HendrikVogt when the code was published in TUGBoat Barbara Beeton claimed that it should be lords-a-leaping, I told her she was the editor, she was welcome to add the - where needed:-) –  David Carlisle Mar 29 '13 at 18:45

Here is one simplification I found from https://bitbucket.org/ambrevar/xii.tex/overview by Pierre Neidhardt:

\def\endverse{}

\def\verse#1 #2,#3:{\if.#3.\par #2{}\else\par#2\verse#3:\fi}

\def\day#1{\bigskip On the #1 day of Christmas my true love gave to me}

\def\gen#1 #2,#3:{\if.#3.\else \gen#3:\fi\day{#1}\verse#1 #2,#3:}

\gen
twelfth twelve drummers drumming,%
eleven eleven pipers piping,%
tenth ten lords a leaping,%