Old Rule 2 versus new Rule 2 wrt judges' remarks in IOCCC28

[xexyl]

Question for you @lcn2. In the 2024/README.md you wrote:

---

Code size and Rule 2

We were pleased to observe that while the IOCCC size limit
increased by about 21%, we received many submissions that were well under the new
Rule 2 size limit including a fair number of quality
small and medium sized submissions. Half of the IOCCC28 winners were less than
2/3 of the size limit, and 10 of the IOCCC28 winners were less than
1/2 of the size limit!

...

IMPORTANT HINT: Only 3 of the 23 IOCCC28 winners came close to the Rule
2 size limit. Large code size isn't everything. :-)
Those submitting to future contents should take a careful note of that fact.

---

Does this apply to BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b? Or is it just Rule 2b? Why I am asking: longer files, even if the Rule 2b size is well under the limit (or even the old limit!), can be fun for formatting. The question is do you want to ruin that? :-) (okay that's obviously ridiculous - the question is is it 2b only or 2a also?)

Thanks!

Oh and BTW: it's been so hectic here and sleep has been so rubbish that I've had a hard time keeping track of things so although I doubt it will happen (and esp as I have it on file) I wanted to wish you a very happy birthday for later this month in case it slips past me! Again I think I'll be fine and be able to on the day but just in case!

[lcn2]

BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b.

[xexyl]

BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b.

Another question for you @lcn2.

What did you consider close to the new limit (for both)? Thanks. It's not a problem .. just wondering as it's vague. Perhaps you intend it to be vague but it'd be useful to know if that's not the case.

[lcn2]

BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b.

Another question for you @lcn2.

What did you consider close to the new limit (for both)? Thanks. It's not a problem .. just wondering as it's vague. Perhaps you intend it to be vague but it'd be useful to know if that's not the case.

Primes and not wanting to expand the size too much.

[xexyl]

BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b.

Another question for you @lcn2.
What did you consider close to the new limit (for both)? Thanks. It's not a problem .. just wondering as it's vague. Perhaps you intend it to be vague but it'd be useful to know if that's not the case.

Primes and not wanting to expand the size too much.

Ah ... so it IS one of the deliberately vague statements from the judges. That might not be as helpful as a direct answer but it's still helpful. Thanks.

[lcn2]

BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b.

Another question for you @lcn2.
What did you consider close to the new limit (for both)? Thanks. It's not a problem .. just wondering as it's vague. Perhaps you intend it to be vague but it'd be useful to know if that's not the case.

Primes and not wanting to expand the size too much.

Ah ... so it IS one of the deliberately vague statements from the judges. That might not be as helpful as a direct answer but it's still helpful. Thanks.

Sorry (tm Canada 🇨🇦): misunderstood the original question. Nevertheless we did not have an explicit definition of "close". We simply looked at the curve and noticed that most were not very "near" a Rule 2 limit.

[xexyl]

BOTH Rule 2a AND Rule 2b.

Another question for you @lcn2.
What did you consider close to the new limit (for both)? Thanks. It's not a problem .. just wondering as it's vague. Perhaps you intend it to be vague but it'd be useful to know if that's not the case.

Primes and not wanting to expand the size too much.

Ah ... so it IS one of the deliberately vague statements from the judges. That might not be as helpful as a direct answer but it's still helpful. Thanks.

Sorry (tm Canada 🇨🇦): misunderstood the original question. Nevertheless we did not have an explicit definition of "close". We simply looked at the curve and noticed that most were not very "near" a Rule 2 limit.

That's quite all right on both parts. I can see how it might happen that there is not a precise number.

Thanks! I did notice that a fair few were over the old limit by a reasonable amount but not right at the new limit - but that was a while ago and I think I only used iocccsize so just the 2b rule (since they didn't break the other). Of course since Leo was not really in favour of the change perhaps the best answer would be to simply keep it <= or not very much over the old limit.

Well anyway I appreciate the answer. Best wishes with the rest of the table code! It's raining here so time to read. I don't have to say what it is so I won't bother!