On 2 April 2018 I saw an email from the day before; the 1st of April was a very difficult day for me and I also happened to be out visiting my now late grandparents so I didn't see it until quite a few hours later. Amusingly and ironically 1 April was Easter and my entry has two Easter eggs; I don't celebrate Easter but I do celebrate having won. My immediate feelings were pride and joy beyond measure - as I knew I would be ahead of time if I won - but I was also taken aback; I didn't expect to win such a contest though I knew I could. Perhaps a big part of this is not believing in myself fully but I still knew that I could win, somehow, whatever the result. Frankly I was surprised they were done judging but they were and I was ecstatic.

My entry is an implementation of Richard Dawkins' Weasel program (Wikipedia) with additional features; this includes the ability to change the target chromosome (string), two Easter eggs one of which I reveal (can you find the other?), a number of options and the program behaviour is also modifiable by redefining two constants at compilation.

My entry can be found here. In that directory there is a file with a brief summary of files called FILES but here I include a few quick notes.

The prog.c file is the entry itself; prog.orig.c is what I originally submitted but I found a minor error (ironically and amusingly the error was the return value in the case of an error: I had 'return 0;' rather than 'return 1;' which is an error itself!) and corrected it. In my detailed remarks file hint.html I show the difference between prog.c and prog-simple.c (keyboards subsection of the hints section) and much more.

The Makefile has a test target; running `make test' runs the script test.sh which reads strings from test-strings.txt passing each string to the program, waiting approximately two seconds between each invocation. I submitted both of these but the judges modified the latter file and I literally laughed out loud at their change (I cite it at the end of this document).

The winning IOCCC 2018 winning entries can be downloaded from here.

Finally perhaps most important of all are my winning comments and in particular my dedications, thanks and acknowledgements.

It is interesting for me to to think about it but I only by accident came across the Weasel program either shortly before the contest opened or very shortly after it opened. It seemed like an interesting thing to implement in an obfuscated way though I had no idea how well it'd go; it went a lot better than I expected: perhaps part of that is self-doubt but another part of it is that there are seasoned winners who have won year after year. Not only that but the judges have seen a lot of twisted code over the contest (and before and in between) and so they certainly have quite a skill in deciphering code. Of course by their own admission they are often surprised so I made sure to submit every little detail I could.

Perhaps more interesting is that I felt a bit false with writing it; that might sound odd so why is it? Well the idea is simply this: although I'm not sure I would classify genetic algorithms as artificial intelligence it somehow does remind me of AI and I am not in favour of AI in the slightest. I realise there is some potential but unfortunately humans have this knack for making really poor decisions; and to design a system that learns on its own, deciding what the best approach is, etc., when you also have robots that can carry things - including weapons - is truly terrifying. This is a moral and ethical debate that is riddled with problems and I am sceptical it can truly be answered in a global way; quite the opposite from what I have read there already are examples where robots have killed. I am a very strong believer in pity and I consider every life precious (because every life IS precious): precious and deserving of peace, happiness and love; but at the same time the reality is living creatures are taken from this world too soon too often and once a life is gone it's gone for ever, leaving only pain and longing to those who loved them.

Either way though I felt the Weasel program was worthy of a submission and I'm glad I did. There's a reason too though as for why I thought it worth working on. The judges state in their guidelines the following (verbatim):

We like programs that:

• are as concise and small as they need to be
• do something at least quasi-interesting
• are portable
• are unique or novel in their obfuscation style
• MAKE USE OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF OBFUSCATION <== HINT!!
• make us laugh and/or throw up :-) (humor really helps!)
• make us want to eat good chocolate.

That's not the only place they use the word interesting but I felt that I could make the Weasel program more interesting - more than Dawkins'. I feel that I succeeded: certainly I did when it has options, the ability to change the string, a couple Easter eggs and other things. I feel also that I succeeded in most the other points too.

How I came across the Weasel program: I first saw it on Wikipedia; I had been looking at the previous winning entries in an attempt to find something of an interesting problem (for example) that hadn't been implemented. I also knew of the Infinite Monkey Theorem and I rather quite enjoy it. By chance I came across the Weasel program and I'm happy I did!

Finally what are my true thoughts about the judges' suggested invocations and comments - and what was the addition to the test-strings.txt file? The judges had the following to say:

My thoughts? I was actually rather shocked that they changed the Makefile to copy prog to weasel - particularly when as of some years ago they no longer rename the binaries to the name of the winner; in fact my entry was the only entry they did it to and I am pleased, honoured and equally surprised. I have a guess why they did it but I really don't know. What about the suggested invocations? Well that's an interesting one:

The suggested string 'EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN FACT' certainly matches my view; the fact they don't enable monkey mode (i.e. don't enable completely randomised mode) for that but they do for 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' is brilliant because here we're talking about evolution (because of the genetic aspect) which is science based whereas 'intelligent design' is pseudo-science (though the proponents would strongly disagree there is a reason it's called PSEUDO-science) and that's the one they suggest randomised mode (and with a long string it's not very likely it'll come to a conclusion). And finally there is: `make test'. What did they add?

PAULINE HANSEN ACTS LIKE A WEASEL

Which as I said made me laugh out loud. Who is she? She's an Australian politician. And anyone who knows me knows that I have at best contempt for politicians; I however won't get into the cesspool that is politics. What about their comments?

Love it. It fits brilliantly; their comments on their own just multiply the source of pride I have. I don't really know how to explain it but it just feels magical - it's perfect. As I already noted I submitted a rpm spec file and the rpm.markdown file has some notes on it (as does the file here I linked to earlier).

One more thing: I said that I would provide contact information in addition to what is published on the IOCCC website but I have decided against that: I already gave enough to contact me should anyone truly want to.

This section should have been here shortly after the 2019 guidelines were published but due to an issue (that I'm actually uncertain of what happened or when - I have had very much going on) the new version of the file was replaced by the old. The Easter egg I refer to has to do with a question the judges asked regarding a number they had used when discussing limitations in entries and the way entries should discuss their limitations in such a way to increase the odds of winning. The question in the 2018 guidelines was:

BTW: What is so special about 2305567963945518424753102147331756070? You tell us!

Intriguing question isn't it? Well not only did I suspect it would be a good thing to find out to answer as far as chances of winning in some way or another but I was quite curious too. So the obvious thing to do would see if I could figure out what it is. How? I started with Google - but how exactly did it unfold? How did I manage to find it? I mean there are a lot of numbers out there, it's a large number and what are the odds it would be defined somewhere? Well frankly that was a bit naïve of me: it probably could be found and obviously it was. But in a somewhat unusual way.

One thing is for certain though: the judges are very fond of prime numbers; but even that was not used in my quest to find what is indeed so special about it. Actually it was a struck of good luck and fortune. What I did is look up the number in Google and what do I see but the number! This number was on Wikipedia - but the Dutch version. Well obviously I could just use Google translate but even if I couldn't I have more Dutch friends than any other location so it wouldn't have been a problem; in fact one such friend I thanked in my winning comments: Martijn Schoemaker, who I owe very much to my programming experience and skill and equally inspiration and motivation.

Anyway by copying the address of the Wiki link and pasting it into https://translate.google.com it linked me to a translation of the page https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primoriaal. This is I hoped would lead me to my answer. Well I was in luck! There was a table called 'Table of primorials' and from the description above it I inferred that it is a primorial prime which happens to be the product of all prime numbers less than the number in question. Searching the page I saw the number indeed:

97   |    2305567963945518424753102147331756070

Aha. Now I had an answer (I confirmed it first but I suspected it was correct somehow)! But I had some work to do yet. It's one thing to answer their question but it's quite another to make use of that number in a clever way - and this is particularly true when their references to the number are related to potential entries. Well my entry already allowed changing of the target string so wouldn't it be a unique twist if it was possible to make the default target string print that number? I thought so and that's what I did. But I also masked the number so that it wasn't visible in the source code. I did give a hint though maybe vague and/or cryptic in my remarks.markdown but in fact I did one other thing that is related to that very section in the guidelines; in fact it's another Easter egg and the judges' comments talk about the number in another way that I took advantage of!.

They talk about how if the entry reaches the limit then it should insult 'your' fish called 'Eric'; but then they point out that the judges might not have a fish called Eric or a fish at all so they added that it should insult the fish Eric even if such a fish does not exist. However my entry does not have anything to do with fish; instead it has to do with monkeys! So obviously I added references to the monkey Eric even if he doesn't exist. Now the truth of the matter is that number is too big for the C standard types but the fact is both of my Easter eggs are somehow connected to the limitations part they discuss. But this is the beautiful thing and what prompted me to even write about the primorial prime Easter egg.

When the judges announced that the 2019 contest would be open as soon as I could I read the guidelines and rules. But I also wondered: would they have made any reference to that number again? Or more correctly would they have removed their question? Yes! They did remove the question! This feels to me like I won twice ... for the same entry! It's also a huge, huge honour to have the judges change the guidelines because of my entry. Now although I don't believe the judges say anything about that or when they change the rules due to a 'Worst/Best abuse of rules' winning entry the previous year Wiki certainly does say it's a high honour. Well I agree there. Yet in a way it's even more special for me because whereas most years they do have that award I do not believe they often change the guidelines due to an entry. Pride beyond pride and joy beyond joy. Now if the judges will only continue with the 2019 judging (they've not done any judging for I believe now three weeks) ...

I would like to acknowledge the other winners because not only are they brilliant but it's a huge honour and privilege to win beside them. In my winning thoughts I thanked Dave Burton for acknowledging me in his remarks in his second winning entry which won the award of 'Best abuse of the rules'. Yet he actually said much more than what I quoted. I want to say that at this time I still haven't tried to figure out (how they work) the other entries but I have tried most of the entries; I don't know when or if I'll get to trying to figure out how the programs work (I have a lot going on and I'm always exhausted). Whatever the case though I want to once again congratulate all the winners on their entry (entries) as they're all fabulous. I think highly of every winner and their entries (previous years, this year and future years) and it's an amazing feeling to win alongside with you all (those who won this year that is). With that being said here are some of my thoughts on the entries in the order listed on what was once The 25th IOCCC Winners.

• Most likely to top the charts: Qiming HOU - Converter of JSON to SVG pie chart

  As far as the obfuscation what I really like is that there are no variables at all; not in any scope whatever. There are a lot of #defines but that's different; naturally they do have parameters themselves but the way they're used is that only numbers are passed to them. This is a brilliant thing and it's kind of similar to an entry of mine that did not win (as clever as the entry is I think that my winning entry is far more interesting) but yet equally it's not alike. In fact this entry not only has no variables but it has absolutely no flow control (except for a few return statements): it only calls macros/functions (some might call this flow control but I disagree but either way it makes for an interesting flow graph.

  The output is very interesting and the award is a clever pun (puns always make me smile and I myself am constantly punning and pointing out puns other people make) because of what the output is. But what I really like about the output is that it references all the winning entries themselves in a wonderful chart (interestingly enough I was working on an entry that did similar only not a chart and so there goes that idea for future contests)!

• Best use of weasel words: Cody Ferguson - Dawkins' weasel simulator

  Yes well .. :) I am obviously biased here. But all the other entries are so special too that it's hard to look at them and say that I love mine more than the others - at least not completely. What it really comes down to is that each and every winning entry (all the winning entries throughout the contest's history) is special in its own way and the authors should be praised, honoured and acknowledged for the skill, creativity, cleverness, novelty, brilliance - and everything else - in every aspect of the entries. They certainly are acknowledged but having won I want to also acknowledge the ones that won alongside mine; acknowledge, praise and comment on. Every single entry no matter what the author may think is special and brilliant in its own ways and it's an honour to be amongst all the winners. I will point out something though that is buried deep within my remarks file but I feel is worthy of mentioning here; the judges say the following:

  We want to get away from source that is simply a compact blob of octets. Really try to be more creative than blob coding. HINT!

  Yet my entry could in some ways be seen as a compact blob of octets (although there are many obfuscation techniques and including some I did not note in the final hint.text file - and I made the technique descriptions more obscure than my original entry did) so what could I do to make sure they don't believe it is in fact a compact blob of octets? Well it's quite simple and this is what I had to say in my remarks:

  And if you’ll notice that although it might look like a compact blob of octets at first glance if you look throughout the file you’ll see two statements to set your thinking straight:

  NO BLOB CODING

  THIS IS NOT A COMPACT BLOB OF OCTETS

  So you see even if your eyes are trying to deceive you they’re quite wrong. Yes some of it might look like a blob but this is clearly false; as all good programmers know if something is potentially confusing or misleading it should be made clear in the comments! :)

  I found this an amusing way to (at least somewhat) dismiss their dislike for compact/blob coding; actually I still do. It's rather cheeky which is just how I tend to be. And what I said in the final paragraph is technically true even if it's often ignored...something I am entirely innocent of (honest)! Okay maybe I'm not but in this case I was innocent! Or was I? :) But the contest is after all a safe forum for 'poor code' (personally I feel that the code isn't at all poor it just goes against all the norms of programming) etc. so it's fine I did. Even if it wasn't depending on my mood I very possibly might do something like that - although not really obfuscated - with two exceptions: I do sometimes enjoy abusing pointers in ways that are well known idioms but frustrate some people; I also love nesting the ternary operator. Oh hell. I love other things too that are often frowned upon although it really depends on the circumstances and my mood is at the time (or what I deem 'right' where 'right' is really just what I want at the time). The best I can think of why I do this is it greatly amuses me (at least as far as causing any frustration etc. in others).

  Finally I'm proud too that there are a number of techniques that other entries use that I have also thought of; it's a wonderful feeling that further shows that I am a lot more capable than I often give myself credit. That's an important thing for me and indeed everyone.

• Most shifty: Don Yang - Text rotator and shifter

  I don't even know what to say about this one it's so convoluted and twisted. I think the simplest thing I can say is it's wickedly brilliant! Don Yang this program is absolutely amazing and you should be really proud to say the least! I am highly impressed. I will need to be at my computer to really look at the outputs and I'm not sure when that will be as I have so much going on (on the laptop now) but whether I get to it ever it's an amazing program looking at the judges' suggested invocations (and a few of my own). The fact output can be compiled and turned into additional tools is just - well the way you shift the input about makes the award perfect! Maybe I'll have to use Dave Burton's script but even that will have to wait. Great great job either way Don!

• Best use of python: Yusuke Endoh - Monty-Pythonesque animated quine

  I have to say Yusuke that I respect you very very much; you're an amazing programmer and that you have won so many entries (more than anyone else) is a testament to not only that but your creativity, ingenuity and devotion. I recently saw too that you created an amazing 128 language quine relay! Brilliantly done. Some of the languages brought back fond memories too (Tcl comes to mind here). But what about this entry?

  First of all I love the Monty Python reference (it's a skit I was only made aware of a couple years ago). But beyond that the output is a lovely animation. The obfuscation is well done too (as I'd expect from you) even going so far as to obfuscate the hints file! I admit I would love for you to have written something more but in a way the fact you didn't makes it all the more magical. Great job and I look forward to seeing your next winning entries (and I know you will win again)!

• Most unstable: Edward Giles - SDL falling sand

  I regret to say that until I'm at my main computer I cannot actually play with the entry itself; however I love the idea of falling sand. The layout is also wonderful considering what it does. But in layout I include the actual obfuscation too. I hope to look at this eventually but either way I know it's impressive to say the least!

• Most likely to be awarded: Marcin Ciura - Strunk & White checker

  Marcin I remember seeing some of your commits during the review period and if I recall you suggested a possible entry in the future and asked who will do it. Whether that was you or no I think whoever did suggest it should go for it! I am almost certain it was you and I think I might have helped you with some typos (and I am almost certain I mentioned I wouldn't suggest to you - pained as I was - to change the word 'period' to 'full stop'). I have to say too that given the time we had and the (little) energy I have (and I have even less now so I'm unsure how I've even done the above) I never did quite figure out the significance of the entry; I can see sort of what it's doing but there's just something mysterious about it in a way I can't quite explain. In this case that's only good because it's just my mental/cognitive state but what I do know is this: I remember laughing out loud (and still do) as well as smiling at your hint.text; the way you got round the fact the judges don't like state machines:

  I heard you don't like state machines so I put a state machine in your state machine so you can reject this entry while you reject this entry.

  I love it! I also like how you explained some of the entry itself and it doesn't make it any less magical; in some ways it makes it more magical. I felt at the time it would be more magical for my entry to remove some of my original obfuscation details and yet in retrospect (just now when thinking about your entry) I think it might have been more magical to keep them so as to show the cleverness and creativity. I may in fact include them here but right now I want to finish the rest of the entries. Wonderful layout too (though I do admit I find my entry a bit more artistic yours is lovely nonetheless and it's special in its own way for sure).

• Most stellar: Timo Poikola - Ursa Major ASCII animation

  Timo the fact your entry was one of the judges' highlights is well deserved. As I even commented it was my favourite entry that I looked at during the review period (and in fact it still is). It's magical and I think it's more than just I have always loved space. It's absolutely beautiful!

  I also absolutely love how you included an actual story: a story that sounds (or could!) fictional (whether it is or no); what's even more wonderful is that it is consistent with what the program actually does! It shows if it's the right time to find and eat Easter eggs when the story has:

  It was a starry night when my wife pointed her finger up and asked: "What is this star and may I have some Easter eggs?"

  So I had to sit down and solve those tricky questions with Nano and a C compiler.

  I shudder at using Nano (I'm a vi and for well over a decade now vim fan but hey - it works for you and that's what matters in the end!) but I do have a hypothetical question for you: since this year Easter was on 1 April does that mean that your program was telling a lie when it said it was time to find and eat Easter eggs? :) But seriously it's a lovely program with great output, I love the idea of a story and I furthermore love the obfuscation techniques! I have something interesting to tell you also: I actually thought of using '$'s in my entry too but I rejected it because I wasn't absolutely certain it was portable! Now I know better that it's acceptable. I did also run into problems where and if I recall correctly it had to do with function names (I want to say it had to do with functions starting with '$' that were a problem but I can't be sure now). Either way I love that you did something I thought of by chance! :)

  As for macOS Terminal.app: I thought it was correct output but I am not in front of a standard terminal (nor am I in front of Konsole but instead I'm using Terminal.app when I'm writing this but unlike Nano users I'm using `cat' ...well okay I'm not that crazy! :))

  Finally great idea to include questions to those who believe they understand the program; for what it's worth during the review period I did look at it briefly and I'm almost certain I couldn't answer the questions (and I question if I would be able to even if I looked at it more thoroughly but I probably will never get round to trying either).

• Best of show: Christopher Mills - PDP-7/11 simulator

  This one is just brilliant. I admit I haven't tried this one yet but it's just a brilliant idea. I love it. It's a nice way to show respect and honour an important historical computer artefact and it's very cool that you even thought of waiting for the 50th anniversary of C (and you're right that it'd be risky to wait but even if that wasn't a risk I'm glad you didn't wait - despite the fact I'm extremely symbolic simply because it's a very useful tool when you get down to it); I am extremely symbolic (I dare say that you'd never know of someone who is more symbolic) and so the fact you also dedicate the entry to the beloved Dennis M. Ritchie is so very special to me and what it does makes it so much better! And thank you for providing the instructions; not only that the history is beautiful and magical all around! The obfuscation is wonderful too! Great work! :)

• Most connected: Scott Vokes - Computing strongly connected graph components

  I admit that at this time (and almost certainly for quite a long while) that I don't have the mental or cognitive faculties to truly understand the connexions of input and output nor can I now even follow the description in the slightest. I love however the references to witchery and also the fact it's then in a layout of a cauldron. Well done :)

• Best tool to reveal holes: Yusuke Endoh - Animated GIF from text

  I love this one but I don't have too much to say. But I will say that my favourite example input/output is the smiley one though I can't say why. Actually I think it has to do with the ASCII art itself and what it turns into. Perhaps not. I just noticed the example invocation of the source code itself. That seems even more significant and magical; so I would say that the source code itself and then the smiley. It's a very clever idea to turn ASCII not only into an image but an animated image. The fact it fits in the size limitations and all the rules makes it so much better (yet not at all does it surprise me that you Yusuke would manage it). The obfuscation is great as usual. Well done!

• Best abuse of the rules: Dave Burton - Tokenize and count

  What to say, Dave? Once again I appreciate you acknowledging and thanking me; it means a great deal to me and I'm glad I can help. I love too that you said (was it the list or in email directly to you? I want to say the latter but I'm not sure) if I had a problem with your unob.sh script it's my fault that it was improved quite a bit! Well the truth of the matter is I consider it an honour even though it converts the digraphs perfectly; it's an honour that I was able to help you esp as you have won before. And on that note when I said on the list something about seasoned winners you said something about I'm now equally as guilty! That means a great deal to me (even though I meant winning before). Finally I appreciate the dialogues we had. I do wonder though if your fixes to the iocccsize tool will be used in the next contest (which at this time I don't think I'll be participating in given what's going on but I also have quite a lot of time and things have changed rapidly and this arguably includes finding something interesting and the time to obfuscate it). As for the source code itself: I love the obfuscation including the rather mysterious string just under: #include W (and the way it's done - continuing the string from the file is quite cleverly done). Then again given one of the techniques you used in your entry in 2015 this doesn't surprise me. Well done and once again thank you for acknowledging me - as well as accusing me of being amongst [you all] as well as pointing out to me that I have myself to blame that your script was more capable (post my bug reports) of parsing code (including mine)! :) That somehow is just beautiful and magical in some weird way (the best I can think of is it's an honour that you directly state how I helped improve it and so I don't have a right to complain - not that I was complaining as in the truest sense of the word! :)).

• Most inflationary: Fabrice Bellard - Image compression demo

  I must confess I love that you included all those control codes: there's something special about that. I had the thought of using ^H in comments but I didn't make use of it either way (yet that's not why your use of it is special; I think it really comes down to the fact it just makes it harder to look at in some way). The rest of the obfuscation is wonderful too. I presently am not on a system that will be able to truly look at the entry but it sounds interesting and as I said the source code itself is lovely.

• Most able to divine code gaps: Derek Anderson - Visualizer of typographic rivers

  You know I earlier said here that another entry I couldn't quite follow or understand but looking at your entry again I now know that that wasn't quite right: or more specifically it's not the entry I was thinking of. It's your entry that I was thinking of. It's true I didn't read about what it implements (the actual technical details of it) but even so it's both wonderful and not so wonderful when the output is confusing. What I do know is that whatever it is or means it's lovely and well worth the award (though here I don't even follow the award title itself - though perhaps I would if I read that documentation).

• Best one-liner: Dave Burton - Hex dumper

  You know Dave I have a certain view on one-liners that might mean something to you and those who also have won the same award: you might think that since it's one line it's simple to follow but that's not necessarily true. But let's say that it is simple. The fact it does something interesting is what makes it truly special. It's simple enough to make a one-line program but to do something interesting is another matter entirely. Well done!

• Most cacophonic: Anton Älgmyr - Converts text to sound using font as spectrogram

  Maybe you don't remember but I said in the list that I was scared to run your program. You gave me some reassurance and gave me some tips to make sure it doesn't hurt my ears but whatever the case I never got round to it and I'm not sure I want to! Now that might seem bad but I have to say I find it quite amusing and thus quite the opposite of 'bad'. I also seem to recall that we had an interesting dialogue (though there were a number of dialogues) and I didn't get to reply to one thing I found interesting (though that might have been Timo it might have been you instead). Even so your entry is interesting and well done; the fact I at least for now am not brave enough to run it doesn't change this fact nor does it take away the creativity or anything else you did. Great job mate!

Yesterday, 11 September 2018, I came across a website that discusses the IOCCC 25 winning entries and I was deeply touched. The reason I am deeply touched is most assuredly because I am extremely symbolic but to a lesser extent because I am immensely proud and happy to have won especially amongst some of the most seasoned winners. But there's more in the website I discovered because it seems the author actually read some of my hints (I am surprised to say the least). The website is Code Witchery Abounds as the IOCCC Celebrates the Strangest C Programs for its 25th Year and I was rather impressed with not just the article itself (and its content and the effort put into it) but also the title. It further adds to my pride and joy of having won. Here's what they had to say about my entry:

Ferguson: "Best use of weasel words" builds on the Infinite Monkey Theorem with weird results.

I like how they summarised my entry: 'weird results'. I'm not sure exactly what they mean by 'weird' but I don't object at all to it; somehow in some ways or others it's just perfect though I can't explain it. The fact they read some of the hints is very special to me indeed. And what they wrote is indeed true: but of course many might not know what the Infinite Monkey Theorem is and this could (for those interested which I imagine very few if any who aren't interested would even consider reading more than a sentence or two if they even looked at it after the title) intrigue some readers. Whatever the case I wanted to both show my pride but also acknowledge their work. Thank you Daniel! It's a wonderful tribute to IOCCC 25 and it means a lot to me. I tip my wizard's cap to you!

I feel, now that I have an errata entry (27th of August 2018) I should have had errata here; however I linked specifically to a subdirectory dedicated to errata. Be that that may I will - whilst updating that page - also include the information here where I feel it actually belongs.

• 1 May 2019: Although Xcode isn't required as a whole the command line tools are; I should have noted this before but either way you simply have to run the following command: sudo xcode-select --install; after this my entry should compile simply by running `make'.
• 27 August 2018: Xcode isn't required under macOS (which I suggested in my remarks file that it is or might be).