Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting Improves LLM Performance on Sarcasm Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting achieves state-of-the-art sarcasm detection scores with GPT-4o by making the model analyze implicature, presupposition, intent, polarity, pretense, and meaning before reflecting on its own answer.

desk verdict A plausible prompt recipe whose SOTA claim is undercut by copy-pasted baseline rows and no statistical support. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04509 v1 pith:RUGPGJM3 submitted 2024-12-04 cs.CL

Joshua Lee , Wyatt Fong , Alexander Le , Sur Shah , Kevin Han , Kevin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords sarcasmdetectionlargelanguagemodelspromptingpragmaticsmetacognitionironyMUStARDSemEval2018Task3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting (PMP), a two-pass prompting scheme in which an LLM first analyzes a statement through six pragmatic lenses—implicature, presuppositions, speaker intent, polarity, pretense, and the gap between literal and implied meaning—and then reflects on that preliminary analysis before issuing a sarcasm verdict. The authors test PMP with GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-3-8B, LLaMA-3-70B, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet on the MUStARD and SemEval 2018 Task 3 benchmarks. Their central claim is that PMP pushes GPT-4o to the best sarcasm-detection scores among the prompting methods they compare, including the cue-based SarcasmCue approach, on both datasets. If correct, the result matters because it suggests that importing pragmatic theories of how humans detect irony into prompts, plus a reflection step, can narrow the gap between general-purpose LLMs and specialized sarcasm models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage PMP prompt. In the first LLM call, the model is told to summarize the dialogue, repeat the bracketed target statement, and write a preliminary analysis covering six pragmatic factors: implicature (what is implied beyond the literal words), presuppositions (what is taken for granted), the speaker's intent, the polarity or tone of the final sentence, whether the speaker is pretending an attitude, and the difference between literal and implied meaning. In the second LLM call, that preliminary analysis is handed back with instructions to reflect on it, revise it, and produce a final sarcastic or non-sarcastic verdict. This is Metacognitive Prompting—repeat, preliminary judgment, reassessment, final answer—augmented with pragmatic theory; the prompt itself, not any fine-tuning, carries the claimed gain.

What would settle it

Run PMP and all baseline prompts (zero-shot, CoT, ToT, BoC, CoC, GoC, ToC) on the same GPT-4o checkpoint, temperature, sampling seed, and evaluation script for both benchmarks, with at least three repetitions; if PMP does not beat the best reproduced baseline on both datasets, the paper's central SoTA claim fails. A secondary check is to audit Table 1's baseline rows for transcription errors, since identical numbers appear for different models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that prompting an LLM to reason like a pragmaticist—explicitly asking it to identify implicatures, presuppositions, speaker intent, polarity, pretense, and the divergence between literal and implied meaning, and then to critique its own first-pass answer—materially improves sarcasm detection. The headline evidence is that GPT-4o with PMP reaches 86.68 accuracy and 83.18 macro-F1 on SemEval 2018 Task 3 and 79.42 accuracy and 77.65 macro-F1 on MUStARD, surpassing every prompting baseline listed in the paper's Table 1, including SarcasmCue's Graph of Cues (74.03/74.02 on SemEval). The paper is careful to phrase the SoTA result as 'on GPT-4o,' because the improvement does not hold uniformly across models: on some benchmarks Claude 3.5 Sonnet responds better to zero-shot prompting than to PMP.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the baseline numbers being trustworthy and comparable: PMP is compared against SarcasmCue results taken from another paper rather than rerun under identical conditions, and Table 1 contains duplicate-looking rows across models, so if those numbers are wrong or not comparable, PMP's state-of-the-art claim is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GPT-4o with PMP outperforms zero-shot, Chain-of-Thought, Tree-of-Thought, and all tested SarcasmCue variants on both MUStARD and SemEval 2018 Task 3, on the paper's reported numbers.
  • PMP also improves LLaMA-3-8B on SemEval 2018, and LLaMA-3-70B outperforms the 8B version, suggesting the benefit scales with model capability.
  • The method is compute-heavy relative to single-pass prompts because it always spends two LLM calls per example, so part of its advantage may come from extra inference steps rather than pragmatic content alone.
  • The two-call design produces a transparent reasoning trace that a human can inspect to see why the model judged a statement sarcastic, as shown in the paper's snowy-commute example.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An ablation that replaces the six pragmatic questions with six generic reflection questions on the same two-pass structure would separate the contribution of pragmatics from the contribution of extra inference compute; the paper does not run this control.
  • Because PMP first asks the model to name presuppositions and implicatures in its own words, its accuracy is bounded by the LLM's pretrained knowledge of cultural and linguistic norms; the authors acknowledge that underrepresented norms are not handled, so gains may be uneven across dialects and languages.
  • The same two-call pragmatic template could be tested on adjacent phenomena—indirect requests, deception, hyperbole—where the six dimensions, especially pretense and implicature, are also thought to be central.
  • A randomized rerun of the baselines under identical sampling conditions is the natural next check; the reported Table 1 contains identical numbers for different models, so some baseline rows may be transcription artifacts rather than genuine measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting (PMP), a two-stage prompting method for LLM sarcasm detection that combines pragmatic analysis (implicature, presupposition, speaker intent, polarity, pretense, and literal/implied meaning) with a metacognitive reflection step. The method is evaluated on MUStARD and SemEval2018 Task 3 using GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, LLaMA-3-8B, and LLaMA-3-70B, and is compared with popular prompting methods and with the SarcasmCue baselines (BoC, CoC, GoC, ToC). The central claim is that PMP achieves state-of-the-art performance on GPT-4o on both benchmarks, with the strongest reported result being 86.68 accuracy / 83.18 Macro-F1 on SemEval2018 versus 74.03 / 74.02 for Graph of Cues. The paper also discusses limitations regarding cultural and linguistic coverage of prompting approaches.

Significance. If the empirical results are confirmed under a consistent evaluation protocol, PMP would be a useful and linguistically motivated extension of Metacognitive Prompting, showing that integrating pragmatic theories into the reasoning loop can substantially improve LLM sarcasm detection. The paper includes a clear connection to established pragmatic frameworks and evaluates across multiple models and prompting strategies. The main contribution is empirical, however, and its credibility currently rests on comparisons to baselines that were not fully re-run or fully documented. The manuscript also ships code via an anonymous link, which is a positive step toward reproducibility, but the prompt templates in the appendix are paraphrased rather than verbatim, and no statistical reliability measures are reported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3.1, Table 1] The central SOTA comparison against SarcasmCue is not established because the BoC, GoC, and ToC numbers are not measured under the same protocol. The paper states that Yao et al.'s code was unavailable and that results were taken from their paper. However, Table 1 reports identical BoC and GoC values for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and LLaMA-3-8B: BoC is 65.94/65.50 on SemEval2018 and 59.71/56.70 on MUStARD for both models, and GoC is 57.33/57.24 and 52.77/52.67 (with a typo '52.7' in the LLaMA row). Two distinct models producing identical results to two decimal places is implausible unless the rows were copied in error. This undermines the reliability of the baseline comparison. Please rerun these baselines under the PMP evaluation protocol, or clearly restrict the SOTA claim to the baselines that were actually run in this work.
  2. [Section 4.3.1, Table 1, Appendix A.1.4] The ToC row is reported (e.g., LLaMA-3-8B ToC: 68.88/68.21 on SemEval2018 and 61.26/58.03 on MUStARD) even though ToC is described as requiring explicit model training. No training data, hyperparameters, model architecture details, or training code are provided. If these numbers are copied from Yao et al., that should be stated explicitly; if the authors trained ToC, full implementation details must be supplied for reproducibility. As written, the comparison to ToC is not verifiable.
  3. [Section 5, Table 1] All results are single-run point estimates without variance, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. The SOTA claim for GPT-4o rests on a 12.65-point accuracy gap (86.68 vs 74.03) on SemEval2018 against a baseline that was not run under the same protocol. Please report multiple runs or seeds with means and standard deviations, and include a paired test (e.g., McNemar) on instance-level predictions for the primary GPT-4o comparison, given that the dataset sizes are modest.
  4. [Section 6, Conclusion, and Table 1] The conclusion states that PMP 'is competitive with or beats the current state-of-the-art methods ... such as GPT4o and LLaMA-3-8B,' but Table 1 shows that on MUStARD with LLaMA-3-8B, PMP underperforms most listed baselines (e.g., PMP 53.48/54.69 versus BoC 65.94/65.50 and GoC 57.33/57.24; and PMP 53.48/54.69 versus ToC 61.26/58.03). This overstates the findings and should be revised to accurately reflect that the strong result is specific to GPT-4o.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1.2] The heading 'Presuppositon' contains a typo and should be 'Presupposition'; similar typos appear elsewhere ('statment', 'lingustic', 'explaination', 'reassesment').
  2. [Section 3 and Figure captions] The text contains unresolved references 'Figure??' and 'Figure ??' in Section 3 and in the description of Figure 1; these should be replaced with the correct figure numbers.
  3. [Section 5] Section 5 references 'Table 2' when discussing the zero-shot Claude 3.5 Sonnet result on MUStARD, but the manuscript contains only Table 1; either add the missing table or update the citation.
  4. [Section 5, Datasets paragraph] The text mentions 'Sarcasm Corpus V1' in the Datasets paragraph, but this dataset is not among the benchmarks described in Section 4.1 (MUStARD and SemEval2018 Task 3); please clarify or correct.
  5. [Appendix A] Appendix A provides paraphrased prompt descriptions rather than verbatim prompt templates; for reproducibility, include the exact prompts used for both PMP calls and for each dataset variation.
  6. [Table 1] The LLaMA-3-8B GoC row on MUStARD reports accuracy as '52.7' rather than '52.77', which is inconsistent with the corresponding Claude 3.5 Sonnet row and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper is an empirical prompt comparison against external baselines, with no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting (PMP) template achieves state-of-the-art sarcasm-detection accuracy with GPT-4o on MUStARD and SemEval2018. This is an empirical comparison claim: PMP is defined by a fixed prompt template built from pragmatics and reflection ideas, and the reported accuracy/Macro-F1 values are not used to construct the template. No parameter is fitted to benchmark labels, no target metric is embedded in the method definition, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to force the PMP design. The baseline numbers come from prior work by Yao et al. and from the authors' own runs with other prompts; even if those external baselines are unreliable or not protocol-comparable, as the duplicated BoC/GoC rows in Table 1 suggest, that is a correctness threat to the SOTA comparison, not a circularity, because copied baseline numbers are inputs to a comparison rather than outputs of a derivation. The paper's Limitations section honestly states scope boundaries without claiming that its assumptions validate its results. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-chain, uniqueness-imported-from-authors, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming-known-result pattern is present in the manuscript, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters are fitted. The method relies on the assumption that LLMs can act on pragmatic instructions and that the chosen benchmarks and reported baselines are reliable for comparison. No new entities, fields, or forces are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Large language models can reliably follow pragmatic reasoning instructions (implicature, presupposition, intent) and produce useful analyses.
    PMP depends entirely on the model's pretrained ability to answer the pragmatic questions; if this fails, the two-call structure adds little.
  • domain assumption The two benchmark datasets (MUStARD and SemEval2018) provide enough context for pragmatic analysis, and their labels are treated as ground truth.
    The evaluation is only as valid as the annotation quality and contextual completeness of these datasets.
  • domain assumption Baseline numbers from SarcasmCue (Yao et al., 2024) are accurate and directly comparable to the authors' runs.
    Because SarcasmCue code was not published, the authors rely on reported numbers; the duplicate rows in Table 1 make this assumption doubtful.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting Improves LLM Performance on Sarcasm Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RUGPGJM3

@misc{pith2026241204509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting Improves LLM Performance on Sarcasm Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RUGPGJM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04509}
}
read the original abstract

Sarcasm detection is a significant challenge in sentiment analysis due to the nuanced and context-dependent nature of verbiage. We introduce Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompting (PMP) to improve the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in sarcasm detection, which leverages principles from pragmatics and reflection helping LLMs interpret implied meanings, consider contextual cues, and reflect on discrepancies to identify sarcasm. Using state-of-the-art LLMs such as LLaMA-3-8B, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, PMP achieves state-of-the-art performance on GPT-4o on MUStARD and SemEval2018. This study demonstrates that integrating pragmatic reasoning and metacognitive strategies into prompting significantly enhances LLMs' ability to detect sarcasm, offering a promising direction for future research in sentiment analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Metacognitive Prompt structure compared to proposed Pragmatic Metacognitive Prompt. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PMP analysis on the phrase “Lots of people tweeting pictures from their cars of their snowy commutes to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Sarc7: Evaluating Sarcasm Detection and Generation with Seven Types and Emotion-Informed Techniques

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces Sarc7, a seven-type sarcasm benchmark on MUStARD, and shows an emotion-based prompting method improves sarcasm type macro-F1 (0.3664) and generation success (72 vs 52 of 100) over zero-shot prompting.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. S. Al Anssari and H. A. N. Hadi. 2021. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.7.16 A pragmatic study of sarcasm in selected tv shows . International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(7):148--153

    work page doi:10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.7.16 2021

  2. [2]

    Anthropic. 2024. https://www cdn.anthropic.com/de8ba9b01c9ab7cbabf5c33b80b7bbc618857627/Model_Card_Claude_3.pdf The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    T. S. Ataei, S. Javdan, and B. Minaei-Bidgoli. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.figlang-1.9 Applying transformers and aspect-based sentiment analysis approaches on sarcasm detection . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.figlang-1.9 2020

  4. [4]

    Besta, N

    M. Besta, N. Blach, A. Kubicek, R. Gerstenberger, M. Podstawski, L. Gianinazzi, J. Gajda, T. Lehmann, H. Niewiadomski, P. Nyczyk, and T. Hoefler. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29720 Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 17682--17690

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29720 2024

  5. [5]

    Santiago Castro, Devamanyu Hazarika, Verónica Pérez-Rosas, Roger Zimmermann, Rada Mihalcea, and Soujanya Poria. 2019. https://aclanthology.org/P19-1016 Reliability-aware dynamic feature composition for name tagging . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1010--1021, Floren...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Clark and Richard J

    Herbert H. Clark and Richard J. Gerrig. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1):121--126

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . Preprint, arXiv:1810.04805

    arXiv 2019

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Gibbs and Herbert L

    Raymond W. Gibbs and Herbert L. Colston. 2007. Irony in Language and Thought. Taylor & Francis Group, New York

    2007

  2. [10]

    Paul Grice

    H. Paul Grice. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, pages 41--58. Academic Press

    1975

  3. [11]

    Horn and Gregory L

    Laurence R. Horn and Gregory L. Ward. 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Wiley Online Library

    2004

  4. [12]

    Kanakaraj and R

    M. Kanakaraj and R. M. R. Guddeti. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOSC.2015.7050801 Performance analysis of ensemble methods on twitter sentiment analysis using nlp techniques . In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Semantic Computing (IEEE ICSC 2015)...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Kreuz and Sam Glucksberg

    Roger J. Kreuz and Sam Glucksberg. 1989. How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4):374--386

    1989

  6. [14]

    Chengxi Li, Feiyu Gao, Jiajun Bu, Lu Xu, Xiang Chen, Yu Gu, Zirui Shao, Qi Zheng, Ningyu Zhang, Yongpan Wang, and Zhi Yu. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08306 Sentiprompt: Sentiment knowledge enhanced prompt-tuning for aspect-based sentiment analysis . Preprint, arXiv:2109.08306

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Y. Liu, R. Zhang, Y. Fan, and J. Guo. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.eacl-main.25.pdf Prompt tuning with contradictory intentions for sarcasm recognition . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page...

    2023

  8. [16]

    OpenAI. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ouyang, P

    X. Ouyang, P. Zhou, C. Li, and L. Liu. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIT.2015.177 Sentiment analysis using convolutional neural networks . In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366 Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2303.11366

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    K. L. Tan, C. P. Lee, and K. M. Lim. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.3390/app13074550 A survey of sentiment analysis: Approaches, datasets, and future research . Applied Sciences, 13(7)

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Y. Y. Tan, C. Chow, J. Kanesan, J. H. Chuah, and Y. Lim. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-023-10235-4 Sentiment analysis and sarcasm detection using deep multi-task learning . Wireless Personal Communications, 129(3):2213--2237

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Max Chatelain, and Hervé Jegou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama: Open and ...

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, and Veronique Hoste. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S18-1005 Semeval-2018 task 3: Irony detection in english tweets . In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 39--50, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association fo...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models . arXiv.org

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Shixiang Shane Gu, William Fedus, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05342 Metacognitive prompting improves understanding in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2308.05342

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    B. Yao, Y. Zhang, Q. Li, and J. Qin. 2024. https://arxiv.org/html/2407.12725v1 Is sarcasm detection a step-by-step reasoning process in large language models? arXiv.org

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y. Cao, and K. Narasimhan. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601 Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models . arXiv.org

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Amir Zadeh, Minghai Chen, Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07250 Tensor fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis . Preprint, arXiv:1707.07250

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Y

    W. Zhang, Y. Deng, B. Liu, S. J. Pan, and L. Bing. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15005 Sentiment analysis in the era of large language models: A reality check . arXiv.org

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. Zou, Z. Lian, P. Tiwari, and J. Qin. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11319 Towards evaluating large language models on sarcasm understanding . arXiv.org

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  23. [31]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.