3 Clarified.
source | link

Adding featuresFeatures added to a pre-existing language, after the challenge was posted

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This isn't the same as these pre-existing loopholes:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

None of these covers the scenario where an existing language is extended by a new function.

Adding features to a pre-existing language, after the challenge was posted

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This isn't the same as these pre-existing loopholes:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

None of these covers the scenario where an existing language is extended by a new function.

Features added to a pre-existing language, after the challenge was posted

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This isn't the same as these pre-existing loopholes:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

None of these covers the scenario where an existing language is extended by a new function.

2 deleted 23 characters in body
source | link

UsingAdding features to a pre-existing language implementation or specification under influence of, after the userchallenge was posted

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This does not use of previously shown loophole suchisn't the same as these pre-existing loopholes:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

NeitherNone of these covers the scenario where an existing production use language is extended by a new function.

Using a language implementation or specification under influence of the user

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This does not use of previously shown loophole such as:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

Neither of these covers the scenario where an existing production use language is extended by a new function.

Adding features to a pre-existing language, after the challenge was posted

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This isn't the same as these pre-existing loopholes:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

None of these covers the scenario where an existing language is extended by a new function.

1
source | link

Using a language implementation or specification under influence of the user

See Covfefify a string. This might been solved in 45 bytes using:

select covfefify(:a) from dual@datadictionary

This does not use of previously shown loophole such as:

  • Using a made-up language specifically designed for the challenge: it is not a made-up language; it is a programming language in use.
  • Using prior knowledge to circumvent other loopholes: it is not made up.
  • Creating a new compiler for a language after a challenge was posted: it is not creating a new compiler, but extending an existing grammar.

Neither of these covers the scenario where an existing production use language is extended by a new function.

    Post Made Community Wiki by Guido Leenders