Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Challenging Assumptions in Learning Generic Text Style Embeddings

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning a general-purpose text encoder on low-level style changes does not yield representations that classify high-level styles better than the pre-trained encoder.

desk verdict Useful negative result held back by missing low-level validation and single-run accuracy numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16073 v2 pith:HQEXRHOS submitted 2025-01-27 cs.LG cs.CL

Phil Ostheimer , Marius Kloft , Sophie Fellenz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords textstyleembeddingscontrastivelearningtransfercompositionalityPTBsentencerepresentationsnegativeresultsBERTfine-tuning
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 tests a hypothesis: that fine-tuning a general-purpose text encoder on fine-grained, low-level style changes (tense, information addition, and similar edits) will produce generic sentence-level style embeddings that transfer to high-level styles such as sentiment, formality, and author style. Using StylePTB as the training source and BERT/RoBERTa as encoders, it compares contrastive and cross-entropy fine-tuning against the untouched pre-trained encoders. The results are largely negative: contrastive learning consistently lowers classification accuracy on all five high-level style benchmarks, and cross-entropy fine-tuning yields only small, inconsistent improvements. The paper reads this as evidence that the compositionality assumption—low-level style changes build high-level styles—may not hold for representation learning.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the contrastive fine-tuning objective over sentence pairs drawn from StylePTB, with similarity computed as the inner product $f(x)^\top f(\tilde{x})$ and a softmax over same-style versus different-style candidates (Eq. 1–2). The paper also fine-tunes with standard cross-entropy loss, and trains a logistic regression classifier on the resulting embeddings to test transfer. The load-bearing assumption is that StylePTB's low-level, linguistically motivated transformations compose into the high-level styles found in the evaluation corpora; the dataset is the only available source of such fine-grained style changes, and the non-parallel pairing of sentences is what distinguishes this approach from prior work using synthetic parallel data.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the claim: take a held-out set of high-level style pairs that are explicitly constructed as compositions of StylePTB-style low-level edits (e.g., formality realized through the specific operations in StylePTB's info-addition and word-substitution categories), and check whether contrastive fine-tuning on StylePTB raises classification accuracy on that set relative to the pre-trained encoder. If it does, the paper's negative result is specific to its evaluation datasets rather than to the compositionality assumption; if it does not, the claim that low-level supervision transfers is directly refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that applying the compositional view of style transfer to representation learning does not deliver the expected generic style embeddings. Fine-tuning BERT and RoBERTa on the 21 individual and 32 compositional low-level style changes in StylePTB, then evaluating with a logistic regression classifier on Yelp/Amazon sentiment, GYAFC formality, Shakespearean versus modern English, and eight Bible versions, shows that the contrastive objective reduces accuracy in every configuration tested, while cross-entropy fine-tuning improves only some datasets (notably Shakespeare and Bible) and by a small margin. The authors attribute the contrastive failure to the objective pushing dissimilar styles too far apart and to training on non-parallel data, and they note that many low-level changes (e.g., tense shifts) do not align with the evaluated high-level styles. The conclusion is that the learned representations do not capture high-level text styles in a way that improves over simply taking the pre-trained CLS representation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-level stylistic edits in StylePTB (tense changes, information addition, and similar operations) are the compositional building blocks of the high-level styles used for evaluation (sentiment, formality, Bible version, Shakespearean). If these edits are not the right atoms of high-level style, then the fine-tuning objective is training the encoder on the wrong signal, and the negative result says nothing about contrastive learning for style.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contrastive fine-tuning on low-level edits, as implemented here, is not a reliable route to generic style embeddings; the paper suggests it is too aggressive and pushes styles too far apart.
  • Cross-entropy fine-tuning gives small gains on some high-level styles, mostly on datasets where the pre-trained CLS token is weak (Shakespeare, Bible), consistent with the claim that RoBERTa's CLS token lacks next-sentence pretraining.
  • The compositionality assumption needs empirical support: a dataset that maps low-level operations to high-level styles, or evaluation on such constructed styles, is required to test whether the approach can work.
  • Non-parallel contrastive data may be insufficient; synthetic parallel data (as in the StyleDistance approach) is the alternative that has shown positive results, implying data type, not the objective, may be the deciding factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The negative result is consistent with the view that style is not a single compositional hierarchy; low-level lexical and syntactic operations and high-level pragmatic or register differences may be orthogonal axes, in which case no amount of low-level supervision will produce a generic high-level style space.
  • A direct test of the compositional premise would be to evaluate the learned embeddings on the low-level StylePTB task itself; if fine-tuning does not even improve low-level style classification, the failure is in the objective, whereas if it does, the failure is in transfer.
  • The paper's findings suggest that future style-embedding work should either define style operationally (as StyleDistance does with synthetic parallel data) or incorporate high-level style labels directly, rather than assuming compositionality.
  • The reliance on English and on a single low-level dataset weakens the generality of the conclusion; a multilingual low-level style corpus could distinguish whether the issue is the compositionality assumption or an artifact of English syntax.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper tests two assumptions underlying generic text style embeddings: (A1) low-level stylistic changes can be composed to form high-level styles, and (A2) contrastively contrasting different styles yields style embeddings. The authors fine-tune BERT-Large and RoBERTa-Large on the StylePTB dataset using cross-entropy, contrastive, or combined losses under three batch-sampling strategies, then train a logistic regression probe on the resulting CLS representations and evaluate on Yelp/Amazon sentiment, GYAFC formality, Shakespearean/modern English, and Bible-version classification. Table 1 shows that cross-entropy fine-tuning gives small and inconsistent gains, contrastive loss often lowers accuracy, and the pre-trained encoders are already strong baselines. The paper concludes that these results challenge the assumption that low-level style changes compose high-level styles and that contrastive learning is an effective route to generic style embeddings.

Significance. If fully established, this negative result would be a useful corrective to the common assumption that fine-grained StylePTB transformations are compositional building blocks of high-level style and to the expectation that contrastive objectives readily produce generic style embeddings. The evaluation design is anchored on held-out high-level style datasets, uses a simple linear probe, and compares against pre-trained encoders, which is methodologically clean for a negative-result study. The paper also states its two assumptions explicitly rather than baking them into the training objective. However, the conclusion is currently underdetermined: the absence of repeated runs and error bars, combined with the lack of any verification that the fine-tuned encoders actually learned the low-level StylePTB distinctions, leaves two competing explanations for the results: a failed training recipe or a genuinely falsified assumption. With internal validation and statistical evidence, the paper could make a valuable contribution.

major comments (5)
  1. [4.2, Table 1] Every number in Table 1 is a single run with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claimed cross-entropy gains are small, for example BERT Shakespeare 85.7 to 86.4 and BERT Bible 50.9 to 52.8, and are within the range of seed-to-seed variation expected when fine-tuning deep transformers. To support the claims that 'incorporating the contrastive loss reduces accuracy compared to cross-entropy fine-tuning' and that cross-entropy gives 'slight accuracy improvements', the authors should report means and standard deviations over at least 3-5 seeds and, where applicable, paired significance tests such as a bootstrap or approximate randomization test.
  2. [4.1-4.3] The paper never verifies that the fine-tuned encoders actually separate the low-level StylePTB styles used in training, so the negative high-level results may reflect a failed training recipe rather than a falsified composition assumption. Training is stopped using the loss on a validation dataset, but no StylePTB validation loss, validation accuracy, or pairwise embedding separation is reported for either the cross-entropy or contrastive models. The note in Section 4.1 that contrasting more than two styles per batch 'resulted in no meaningful representations' makes it plausible that the two-style setup also failed to learn robust low-level structure. The authors should add a direct low-level evaluation, such as StylePTB held-out classification accuracy or pairwise separation, for each fine-tuned model; if the encoders do not separate low-level styles, the paper must be reframed as a training-recipe study rather than a test of Assumption 1.
  3. [3, 4.1] Key implementation choices are underspecified: which subset of the 21 individual and 32 compositional StylePTB changes is used, how low-level styles are defined for batch construction, how many candidate sentences form X_cand, and how positive and negative pairs are drawn from the dataset. The notation in Section 3 is also garbled, as 'Xcand = Xs ∪ Xs' should presumably read X_s ∪ X_{\bar s} to denote same-style and different-style candidates. Without these details, the cross-entropy and contrastive experiments cannot be reproduced, and it is unclear whether the low-level objective actually instantiates the composition operation assumed in Assumption 1.
  4. [4.3] Even if the encoders learn low-level distinctions, the evaluation is only meaningful if the StylePTB transformations align with the high-level target styles. The authors acknowledge in Section 4.3 that 'some low-level changes, like info addition, relate directly to a formality change, others, such as tense changes, do not align with the investigated styles,' but they provide no quantitative analysis of how many training examples are of each transformation type or how much overlap exists between StylePTB transformations and the sentiment, formality, and register dimensions of the evaluation datasets. This leaves the negative result open to the alternative interpretation that the fine-tuning objective is irrelevant to the high-level styles under test. A per-transformation breakdown of downstream accuracy, or an analysis restricted to transformations that plausibly align with each target style, would materially strengthen the conclusion.
  5. [2, 5] The paper repeatedly contrasts its findings with StyleDistance (Patel et al., 2024) but never includes a StyleDistance baseline or a close reproduction of its training setup. Since the authors identify synthetic parallel data as the key difference, the statement in Section 5 that the approach 'does not yield the expected results compared to previous work (Patel et al., 2024)' is not directly supported without running a comparable method under the same evaluation protocol. Adding such a baseline, or at least an ablation that uses synthetically constructed low-level parallel examples with the same contrastive loss, would clarify whether the failure is due to the contrastive objective per se or to the use of non-parallel training data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The table header 'GY AFC' contains a spurious space, and the column structure under Random Sampler, Pairwise Sampler, and Corpus Sampler should be explained in a table note, as it is currently easy to misread which loss corresponds to which column.
  2. [3, Eq. (1)-(2)] The notation X_s and X_{\bar s} is introduced informally, and the sentence 'we first form pairs of sentences, some equal and others of a different style' is ambiguous: 'equal' should be specified as same sentence, same style, or something else.
  3. [4.3] The 'RoBERTa's "CLS" Tokens Need Fine-Tuning' explanation is imprecise because BERT's CLS token is trained with a next-sentence prediction objective while RoBERTa's is not; the proposed mechanism should be verified empirically or stated more cautiously.
  4. [General] The paper does not state whether code and trained models will be released; for a negative-result paper, releasing the fine-tuning and evaluation code would substantially increase its value to the community.
  5. [1] The abbreviation 'i.a.' in the Introduction is uncommon in machine learning venues and should be replaced with 'among others'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper tests its assumptions empirically on external benchmarks rather than deriving or fitting its conclusions.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. Its central claim is a negative empirical result: fine-tuning a pre-trained encoder on low-level StylePTB changes does not consistently improve classification of high-level styles on separate benchmark datasets. The two assumptions (Lyu et al. 2021 that low-level changes compose high-level styles; Patel et al. 2024 that style embeddings can be learned by contrasting styles) are explicitly stated and then empirically tested, not used to define the outcome. The evaluation uses external datasets (Yelp, Amazon, GYAFC, Shakespeare, Bible) with standard train/dev/test splits and a logistic probe, so the results are not forced by construction. The fine-tuning objective is trained on StylePTB only; the high-level labels are never used to train the encoder. The mild concern that the paper does not verify internally that the fine-tuned models actually learned low-level StylePTB distinctions is a robustness or underdetermination issue about the negative result, not a circularity: it concerns whether the training recipe worked, not whether the claim is equivalent to its inputs. Self-citations (e.g., Ostheimer et al. 2023) appear only in related-work context and are not load-bearing for the experiments or conclusions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. The honest finding is therefore no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants or invented entities. Its central inferences rest on two explicit assumptions from prior work (composability of low-level style changes and the usefulness of contrastive learning) plus an implicit assumption that evaluation labels reflect style rather than content. All are domain assumptions tied to the chosen datasets and methods.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Low-level stylistic changes can be composed to form high-level styles (Assumption 1, Section 3)
    Adopted from Lyu et al. (2021); the fine-tuning strategy only makes sense if StylePTB's fine-grained edits are the building blocks of the high-level styles in Yelp/Amazon/GYAFC/Shakespeare/Bible.
  • domain assumption Contrastively pushing sentence representations of different styles apart yields useful style embeddings (Assumption 2, Section 3)
    Adopted from Patel et al. (2024); the method uses inner-product similarity and a contrastive objective, which is only meaningful if the representation space geometry encodes style.
  • domain assumption The evaluation datasets' labels (sentiment, formality, Bible version, Shakespeare) reflect style rather than content or semantic difference
    The linear probe accuracy on these labels is treated as a measure of style discriminability; if the labels track content instead, the results do not speak to style at all.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenging Assumptions in Learning Generic Text Style Embeddings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQEXRHOS

@misc{pith2026250116073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenging Assumptions in Learning Generic Text Style Embeddings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQEXRHOS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16073}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in language representation learning primarily emphasize language modeling for deriving meaningful representations, often neglecting style-specific considerations. This study addresses this gap by creating generic, sentence-level style embeddings crucial for style-centric tasks. Our approach is grounded on the premise that low-level text style changes can compose any high-level style. We hypothesize that applying this concept to representation learning enables the development of versatile text style embeddings. By fine-tuning a general-purpose text encoder using contrastive learning and standard cross-entropy loss, we aim to capture these low-level style shifts, anticipating that they offer insights applicable to high-level text styles. The outcomes prompt us to reconsider the underlying assumptions as the results do not always show that the learned style representations capture high-level text styles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16073 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our training objective pushes sentence rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Keith Carlson, Allen Riddell, and Daniel Rockmore. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171920 Evaluating prose style transfer with the Bible . Royal Society Open Science, 5(10):171920

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.171920 2018

  2. [2]

    Pengyu Cheng, Martin Renqiang Min, Dinghan Shen, Christopher Malon, Yizhe Zhang, Yitong Li, and Lawrence Carin. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.673 Improving disentangled text representation learning with information-theoretic guidance . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, O...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.673 2020

  3. [3]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming - Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n19-1423 BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, ...

    doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  4. [4]

    Chrysanne DiMarco and Graeme Hirstt. 1993. A Computational Theory of Goal - Directed Style in Syntax . Computational Linguistics, 19(3):50

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Zhenxin Fu, Xiaoye Tan, Nanyun Peng, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. 2018. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI18/paper/view/17015 Style transfer in text: Exploration and evaluation . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the ...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.552 SimCSE : Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddings . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana , Dominican Republic , 7-11 November , 2021 . Association for Compu...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.552 2021

  7. [7]

    Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2017. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/hu17e.html Toward controlled generation of text . In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017 , volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages ...

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Vineet John, Lili Mou, Hareesh Bahuleyan, and Olga Vechtomova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p19-1041 Disentangled representation learning for non-parallel text style transfer . In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers , pages 424--...

    doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1041 2019

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Heejin Kim and Kyung - Ah Sohn. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.191 How positive are you: Text style transfer using adaptive style embedding . In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (On...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Taeuk Kim, Kang Min Yoo, and Sang - goo Lee. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.197 Self-guided contrastive learning for BERT sentence representations . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Interna...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Yoon Kim. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1181 Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification . In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP ) , pages 1746--1751, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Li...

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Guillaume Lample, Sandeep Subramanian, Eric Michael Smith, Ludovic Denoyer, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Y - Lan Boureau. 2019. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1g2NhC5KQ Multiple-attribute text rewriting . In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, N...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Fangyu Liu, Ivan Vulić, Anna Korhonen, and Nigel Collier. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.109 Fast, Effective , and Self - Supervised : Transforming Masked Language Models into Universal Lexical and Sentence Encoders . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach . CoRR, abs/1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJvJXZb0W An efficient framework for learning sentence representations . In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conferenc...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Hovy, Barnab \' a s P \' o czos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis - Philippe Morency

    Yiwei Lyu, Paul Pu Liang, Hai Pham, Eduard H. Hovy, Barnab \' a s P \' o czos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis - Philippe Morency. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.171 Styleptb: A compositional benchmark for fine-grained controllable text style transfer . In P...

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    David D McDonald and James Pustejovsky. 1985. A computational theory of prose style for natural language generation. In Second Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    1985

  10. [18]

    Phil Ostheimer, Mayank Kumar Nagda, Marius Kloft, and Sophie Fellenz. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-ACL.687 A call for standardization and validation of text style transfer evaluation . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, T...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Ajay Patel, Jiacheng Zhu, Justin Qiu, Zachary Horvitz, Marianna Apidianaki, Kathleen McKeown, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2024. Styledistance: Stronger content-independent style embeddings with synthetic parallel examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12757

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training

    2018

  13. [21]

    Tetreault

    Sudha Rao and Joel R. Tetreault. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-1012 Dear sir or madam, may I introduce the GYAFC dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associatio...

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1410 Sentence- BERT : Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT - Networks . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference...

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Jaakkola

    Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/2d2c8394e31101a261abf1784302bf75-Abstract.html Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Chen, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews

    Rafael Alberto Rivera Soto, Kailin Koch, Aleem Khan, Barry Y. Chen, Marcus Bishop, and Nicholas Andrews. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=cWiEN1plhJ Few-shot detection of machine-generated text using style representations . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learn...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Wei Xu, Alan Ritter, Bill Dolan, Ralph Grishman, and Colin Cherry. 2012. https://aclanthology.org/C12-1177/ Paraphrasing for style . In COLING 2012, 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference: Technical Papers, 8-15 December 2012,...

    2012

  18. [26]

    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...

  19. [27]

    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 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.