Taking the pedantic-aggressive attitude, you get: "twice after me repeat twice after me."
I think that the answer ignores the punctuation, and is thus incorrect.
Even then you'd get "repeat twice after me repeat twice after me", which loses the colon and quotation marks needed to make a valid "program".
Thinking about it, yeah, you are right. The output is not identical to the original, even if the original is interpreted properly.
If you go by the rules for palindromes, punctuation and spacing are discarded in the comparison, so the output would satisfy the requirements.
Of course, this is something that has always bothered me about palindromes. Reversing "Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog" produces "goh angasal a ,m'I imalas a gnah og", which is clearly not the same sentence.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
If you go by the rules for palindromes, punctuation and spacing are discarded in the comparison, so the output would satisfy the requirements.
If we are talking about quines, I don't think preserving only the alphabetic characters is enough, especially if losing the punctuation changes the meaning of the sentence.
The result of a quine should also be a quine in itself, which when run produces the same result.
where quine.c is the file containing the source code and print is a function that prints the contents of files be considered a quine?
The reason I ask this is because this program seems to be the equivalent of "Repeat this entire sentence.", so whether or not the above is a quine should determine whether whether that sentence can be considered an English quine.
No, because filenames can change.
The traditional C quine, main() { char *s="main() { char *s=%c%s%c; printf(s,34,s,34); }"; printf(s,34,s,34); }, and its variants in other languages, are based on the idea of embedding a copy of the program's source code within the program (here indicated with blue color), and where the recursion would occur (i.e. the embedded code would in turn contain a copy of the program), a special sequence is used (here indicated with red), and the program replaces that sequence with a copy of the entire string (here indicated with yellow). In other words, you need a variable to store a string into, and a way to refer to that string twice. This translates to speech such that you must use an indirect reference to the spoken sentence, such as "this" or "what I just said", because otherwise you need to recurse infinitely: "tell me [tell me [tell me [tell me [tell me [tell me [...]]]]]]]".
Unless you assume a perfectly willing responder, no English quine is foolproof.
Some of the responses that I saw through my quick skims show more fault on the part of the responder and his unwillingness to comply than on the command itself.
<Zurreco> if so called professional players cant adapt to every playing field, theyre obviously not that great
