mith wrote:I'm not sure what the best way to write this is, but you can also do something like this:
(7)r9c8 = (r1c8 | r7c8) - (r1c5 & r7c4) = (7-8)r9c5 = (8-1)r9c2 = (r4c2 & r7c1) - (r4c8 | r7c8) = (1)r9c8 => -5r9c8
Nothing wrong with that. It's probably the most readable way to write it. I might have written it like this:
(7)r9c8 = r17c8 - (7,7)r1c5,r7c4 = (78-1)r9c52 = (1,1)r4c2,r7c1 - r47c8 = (1)r9c8 => -5 r9c8
Note that it's actually a loop but yields no extra eliminations as such. It also contains two subchains, (7r9c8==7r9c5) and (1r9c2==1r9c8), which yield -17r9c9 if desired.