Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Aspheric lens design proposal for near-perfect mode-matching of a broadband quantum dot micropillar to a single-mode fibre

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Aspheric microlens lifts fibre coupling from 16.9% to 99.9%

desk verdict Promising design study with a nice scaling law, but the 99.9% coupling number rests on a far-field NA proxy rather than a true mode-overlap integral. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06223 v1 pith:E5JYNYYR submitted 2025-08-08 quant-ph physics.optics

Yichen Zhang , David Dlaka , James McDougall , James Y Tai , Petros Androvitsaneas , Edmund Harbord , Ruth Oulton , Andrew B. Young This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords single-photonsourcemicropillarcavityquantumdotasphericmicrolensmodematchingsingle-modefibrecouplingFDTDsimulationnumericalaperture
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 adding a small aspheric SiO2 microlens directly on top of a quantum-dot micropillar so that the emitted mode matches a standard single-mode fibre almost perfectly. It claims the lens raises fibre mode-matching from 16.9% to 99.9%, cutting coupling loss to about 0.1%, while leaving the pillar's 96% internal efficiency untouched, giving a 96.4% end-to-end single-photon source. The result matters because fibre-coupling loss, not cavity efficiency, is currently the main bottleneck to using bright micropillar sources in quantum networks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the aspheric lens surface profile $z(x) = \frac{x^2/R}{1+\sqrt{1-(1+k)x^2/R^2}} + k_4 x^4$, where $k$ is the conic coefficient and $k_4$ the quartic coefficient. The argument uses the near-field mode-field diameter and far-field numerical aperture, linked by $\mathrm{MFD} \approx 2\lambda/(\pi\,\mathrm{NA})$, and the far-field coupling formula from [31], $\eta_{\mathrm{SMF}} = 4\mathrm{NA}_p^2\mathrm{NA}_f^2 / (\mathrm{NA}_p^2 + \mathrm{NA}_f^2)^2$, to convert NA values into mode-matching efficiency. A scaling law $k_4(R') = k_4/S^3$ lets the design be rescaled to other lens radii.

What would settle it

Measure the full complex far-field (amplitude and phase) of the $R=5.7\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, $k_4 = 3.75\times10^{-3}\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ lens design from FDTD or a fabricated device and compute the overlap integral with the SMF-28 mode; if the integrated overlap is more than a few tenths of a percent below unity, or if a fibre-coupling experiment yields coupling efficiency below 99%, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using FDTD simulations with the micropillar design from [29], the authors find that the best lens base is a hemisphere (conic coefficient $k=0$) and the quartic coefficient $k_4$ tunes the output numerical aperture while the base radius $R$ tunes the mode-field diameter. The two can be perturbed together to match both the MFD and NA of SMF-28. For the optimal lens, $R = 5.7\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, $k=0$, $k_4 = 3.75\times 10^{-3}\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-3}$, the far-field emission has NA matching the fibre, and Eq. (2) gives $\eta_{\mathrm{SMF}} = 0.999(0.1)$, i.e. 0.1% mode-mismatch loss ($4.35\times 10^{-3}$ dB). Because internal efficiency is unchanged, end-to-end efficiency is 96.4%. The design tolera

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the far-field coupling formula Eq. (2), which depends only on the $1/e^2$ numerical apertures, accurately captures the true modal overlap between the pillar emission and the fibre; if the actual emitted beam has significant phase aberrations or non-Gaussian structure, the overlap could be lower than 99.9%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Direct-to-fibre butt coupling becomes feasible, removing the bulk optics that currently dominate end-to-end losses.
  • The proposed source reaches 96.4% end-to-end efficiency, a large step beyond the state-of-the-art 71% into SMF cited in the paper.
  • The lens approach preserves the micropillar's 96% internal efficiency instead of trading coupling for cavity performance.
  • The reported fabrication tolerances (about 400 nm lateral offset and ±10% lens-height error) fall within standard clean-room and 3D-printing capabilities.
  • The scaling law gives a recipe for retuning the lens to other micropillar diameters and wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Eq. (2) uses only NA values, a direct computation of the full overlap integral including phase would be a sharper test; if the real mode has phase curvature or non-Gaussian structure, measured coupling could fall below 99.9%.
  • The scaling law suggests a testable family of designs: for any pillar diameter, one could tune $R$ and $k_4$ independently and check whether the same near-unity coupling appears in FDTD.
  • The claim that internal efficiency is unchanged is tied to the specific 96%-efficient pillar used; for substantially different pillar designs, the lens surface should be re-optimised jointly with the cavity.
  • The 0.1% figure is a mode-matching estimate from far-field NA, not a measured end-to-end fibre insertion loss; a fabricated device would likely include additional coupling and propagation losses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes integrating a SiO2 aspheric microlens on top of a micropillar single-photon source to mode-match its emission to a standard single-mode fibre (SMF-28). Using FDTD simulations, the authors sweep the lens parameters (base radius R, conic coefficient k, and quadric coefficient k4), establish a scaling law for k4(R), and identify an optimal lens (k = 0, R = 5.7 µm, k4 = 3.75×10^-3 µm^-3) that purportedly matches both the mode-field diameter and numerical aperture of the pillar emission to those of the fibre. The coupling efficiency is then computed via Eq. (2), a far-field Gaussian overlap formula, giving η_SMF = 0.999(0.1), i.e., <0.1% mode-mismatch loss, and an end-to-end efficiency of 96.4% assuming the internal efficiency remains 96%. The paper also reports robustness to lateral misalignment and lens-height errors.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim holds, the design would reduce fibre-coupling loss of micropillar sources from ~83% to ~0.1%, a substantial advance toward scalable photonic quantum technologies. The paper's scaling law in Eq. (4) and the conclusion that k = 0 is optimal are clean, testable results, and the tolerance analysis (Fig. 5) is a useful engineering contribution. However, the headline coupling efficiency is currently computed with a simplified proxy formula rather than a direct field-overlap integral, and the claimed preservation of internal efficiency is not demonstrated. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claim, but appear addressable with the existing FDTD framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (2), Fig. 4] The central claim η_SMF = 0.999(0.1) is computed from Eq. (2), which assumes two coaxial, aberration-free Gaussian beams and uses only their 1/e^2 NAs. The FDTD simulation provides full complex field data, but the paper does not report the overlap integral between the simulated field and the LP01 fibre mode (near-field or far-field). Given that Fig. 2(c) and Fig. 5(a) show non-Gaussian, bimodal distributions for nearby parameters, the mode at the optimum must be quantitatively shown to be Gaussian with a uniform phase front. Without this check, the 0.1% uncertainty excludes the systematic error of the proxy formula and the 'near-perfect mode-matching' claim is not established.
  2. [§3, 'maintaining the internal efficiency'] The statement that the internal efficiency η_C is unchanged by the lens is asserted but not demonstrated. Placing a lens with R = 5.7 µm and k4 = 3.75×10^-3 µm^-3 on top of the pillar changes the top boundary condition and the emission environment, which can alter the Purcell factor and outcoupling. The manuscript reports no FDTD computation of η_C for the lensed device. Since the end-to-end efficiency of 96.4% directly multiplies η_C = 96% by η_SMF, this assumption is load-bearing and needs explicit support.
  3. [§3, design optimization and Eq. (2)] The 99.9% coupling value is partly circular: the lens parameters are optimized to make NAp ≈ NAf (and wp = wf), and Eq. (2) is a monotonic function of the NA ratio, so it returns near unity by construction. The FDTD simulation is the only external check, but it is used only to extract NA and MFD, not to compute the actual modal overlap. Moreover, Eq. (2) does not contain wp or wf, so the stated condition wp = wf is not what enters the formula. A direct overlap integral from the simulated fields would break this circularity and independently verify the claimed loss.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Many symbols appear garbled in the manuscript text: 'Ĉ', 'ĤSiO2', 'ĭp', 'āSMF', and 'NA Ĝ, NAĦ' in the text around Eq. (2). These should be corrected to standard notation (e.g., η_C, n_SiO2, MFD_p, η_SMF, NAp, NAf).
  2. [Eq. (2), reference [31]] The conditions under which Eq. (2) is valid (Gaussian modes, no tilt, no lateral offset, matched phase curvature) should be stated explicitly in the text, since the entire efficiency estimate depends on this formula.
  3. [§2, Fig. 2 caption] Units for k4 are given as µm^-3 in the caption but the body text says 'k4 = 0.75' without units; please make units consistent throughout.
  4. [§2, Fig. 3(b)] The blue vertical dashed line indicating 'perfect mode-matching in the far-field' is not clearly explained in the caption or text; please clarify what criterion defines this line and why the near-field MFD is not matched in the same range.
  5. [§3, optimal lens parameters] For the optimal lens, the paper states wp = wf and NAp ≃ NAf but does not report the extracted values of wp and NAp (or their uncertainties). Reporting these numbers would make the optimization reproducible and support the subsequent calculation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

η_SMF=0.999 reduces to Eq. (2) evaluated at the NA-matching design target; 0.1% loss is the fit residual, not an independent overlap computation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, 'Optimal Aspheric Lens Design for < 0.1% SMF Coupling Loss'; text after Eq. (2), describing the k=0, R=5.7 μm, k4=3.75e-3 μm^-3 design]
    "Due to the fact that wp = wf, one can use (2) to find āSMF = 0.999(0.1); in other words, that the fibre coupling losses due to mode mismatch are ≈ 0.1(0.1)%"

    The design process preceding this sentence selected the lens parameters specifically so that NAp≃NAf and wp≃wf. Eq. (2) is algebraically equal to 1 when NAp=NAf, so the reported 0.999 is a restatement of the matching condition, not a separate calculation of mode overlap. The FDTD simulation gives NAp, but the full complex-field overlap with the LP01 fibre mode is not computed; hence the headline loss is forced by the optimization target.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, η_SMF=0.999(0.1), reduces by the paper's own equations to its optimization target. The lens (k=0, R=5.7 μm, k4=3.75e-3 μm^-3) is chosen in Section 3 to make the far-field NA of the pillar-lens system match the SMF NA (NAp≃NAf, wp≃wf). Eq. (2), η=4 NAp^2 NAf^2/(NAp^2+NAf^2)^2, is identically 1 when NAp=NAf, so the quoted 0.1% loss is essentially the residual of the NA match, not an independent overlap computation. The FDTD simulations independently determine NAp, but the leap from NAp to η is made via a Gaussian far-field proxy formula rather than a direct complex-field overlap integral with the fibre mode. The paper's own observations of non-Gaussian/bimodal emission away from the optimum (Figs. 2(c), 5) underline that such a full overlap check is needed before the 99.9% number can be treated as a true prediction; this is a validation gap, but the reduction of η to the NA-matching target is the circular element. The assertion that internal efficiency η_C remains unchanged after adding the lens is also unsupported by a simulation in the text, but that is an omitted proof rather than a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: Ref. [29] supplies the initial pillar efficiency, but the new coupling claim does not depend on that citation for its derivation. Overall, the design is plausible, but the headline coupling-loss number is partly circular because it is the fitting target restated through Eq. (2).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The design rests on the prior micropillar simulation from the same group (ref [29]) and a known far-field coupling formula (ref [31]). The optimized lens parameters are free parameters fitted to the fiber target. No new physical entities (particles, forces, etc.) are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Lens radius R = 5.7 um
    Optimized in FDTD to match the SMF mode. The optimal radius is a free design parameter chosen by simulation.
  • Quadric coefficient k4 = 3.75e-3 um^-3
    Optimized to minimize emission NA and match the SMF NA, after a sweep over k4 values.
  • Conic coefficient k = 0
    Set to 0 after a sweep showed k = 0 maximizes the fraction of field inside NA = 0.14.
  • Scaling constant a = k4 * R^3 = 0.149(0.003) um^-3
    Fitted to FDTD data in Fig. 3(a) to establish the scaling law in Eq. (4). This constant is used to extrapolate lens designs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FDTD solutions of Maxwell's equations accurately model the near-field and far-field emission of the micropillar-lens system.
    The entire design relies on a commercial FDTD solver. No convergence tests, mesh sizes, or boundary condition details are provided, so the accuracy is assumed.
  • domain assumption Eq. (2), the far-field coupling formula from Kataoka, gives the correct SMF coupling efficiency for the actual device mode.
    The 99.9% efficiency is computed from Eq. (2) using NA values. This assumes both modes are Gaussian and that matching MFD and NA is sufficient for near-perfect overlap.
  • ad hoc to paper The internal efficiency (eta = 96%) of the micropillar is unaffected by the presence of the lens.
    Stated in Section 3, but no quantitative comparison of emission efficiency with and without the lens is shown. The lens changes the top boundary condition and could alter Purcell enhancement and leakage.
  • domain assumption The micropillar emission and the SMF mode are both well approximated by Gaussian beams with 1/e^2 NA definitions.
    Used to justify Eq. (2) and the MFD-NA relation in Eq. (1). The far-field profile in Fig. 4 is only qualitatively Gaussian, and non-Gaussian features are seen at some tolerances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aspheric lens design proposal for near-perfect mode-matching of a broadband quantum dot micropillar to a single-mode fibre." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5JYNYYR

@misc{pith2026250806223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aspheric lens design proposal for near-perfect mode-matching of a broadband quantum dot micropillar to a single-mode fibre},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5JYNYYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06223}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum dots in micropillars are one of the most promising options for a bright, deterministic single photon source. While highly efficient devices (>95%) have been designed, there remains a significant bottleneck that impacts the overall system efficiency: the large numerical aperture of the output mode. This leads to inefficient coupling of emitted photons into single-mode fibre, thus limiting practical integration into quantum computing and communication architectures. We show that with the addition of a well designed aspheric SiO2 microlens we can decrease the mode-matching losses to a SMF from 83.1% to <0.1(0.1)%. This can result in a single photon source design with 96.4(0.1)% end-to-end efficiency, paving the way for scalable photonic quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The emission of a micropillar with a microlens on the top face. The mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The far-field projection of the emitted modes is shown as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows a plot of the FDTD-determined k4 values resulting in the smallest NA as a function of the lens radius R as grey data points. The blue solid line shows the model in Eq. 4 where the R = 2 µm, k4 = 0.14µm−3 has been taken as an arbitrary S = 1 starting point. The excellent agreement of the model with the simulated data, and with the fitted value of Eq.4 shown as a dashed red line with k4 = 0.149(0.003)µm−3 , sugg… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The far-field profiles of the field intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The device NA (left y-axis, blue) and mode-matching efficiency (right, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dlaka, P

    D. Dlaka, P. Androvitsaneas, A. Young, et al., Design principles for > 90\

    work page

  2. [2]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vu c kovi\' c , Photonic quantum technologies, Nature Photonics 3, 687–695 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Couteau, S

    C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, et al., Applications of single photons to quantum communication and computing, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 326–338 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Knill , R

    E. Knill , R. Laflamme , and G. J. Milburn , A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics , Nature 409, 46--52 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, et al., Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135--174 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Buterakos, E

    D. Buterakos, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic generation of all-photonic quantum repeaters from solid-state emitters, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041023 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theoretical Computer Science 560, 7--11 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Jennewein, U

    T. Jennewein, U. Achleitner, G. Weihs, et al., A fast and compact quantum random number generator , Review of Scientific Instruments 71, 1675--1680 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Beveratos, R

    A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, et al., Single photon quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 187901 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    J. P. Dowling, Quantum optical metrology – the lowdown on high-n00n states, Contemporary Physics 49, 125--143 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, High-noon states by mixing quantum and classical light, Science 328, 879--881 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Couteau, S

    C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, et al., Applications of single photons in quantum metrology, biology and the foundations of quantum physics, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 354–363 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Moreau, I

    E. Moreau, I. Robert, J. M. G\' e rard, et al., Single-mode solid-state single photon source based on isolated quantum dots in pillar microcavities , Applied Physics Letters 79, 2865--2867 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Pelton, C

    M. Pelton, C. Santori, J. Vuc kovi c \' c , et al., Efficient source of single photons: A single quantum dot in a micropost microcavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 233602 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Vu c kovi\' c , D

    J. Vu c kovi\' c , D. Fattal, C. Santori, et al., Enhanced single-photon emission from a quantum dot in a micropost microcavity , Applied Physics Letters 82, 3596--3598 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Somaschi, V

    N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. D. Santis, et al., Near-optimal single-photon sources in the solid state, Nature Photonics 10, 340--345 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    X. Ding, Y. He, Z.-C. Duan, et al., On-demand single photons with high extraction efficiency and near-unity indistinguishability from a resonantly driven quantum dot in a micropillar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 020401 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Unsleber, Y.-M

    S. Unsleber, Y.-M. He, S. Gerhardt, et al., Highly indistinguishable on-demand resonance fluorescence photons from a deterministic quantum dot micropillar device with 74\

  11. [19]

    Ginés, M

    L. Ginés, M. Moczała-Dusanowska, D. Dlaka, et al., High extraction efficiency source of photon pairs based on a quantum dot embedded in a broadband micropillar cavity, Physical Review Letters 129 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Androvitsaneas, A

    P. Androvitsaneas, A. B. Young, C. Schneider, et al., Charged quantum dot micropillar system for deterministic light-matter interactions, Phys. Rev. B 93, 241409 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Androvitsaneas, A

    P. Androvitsaneas, A. B. Young, J. M. Lennon, et al., Efficient quantum photonic phase shift in a low q-factor regime, ACS Photonics 6, 429–435 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Sartison, S

    M. Sartison, S. L. Portalupi, T. Gissibl, et al., Combining in-situ lithography with 3d printed solid immersion lenses for single quantum dot spectroscopy, Scientific Reports 7 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Y. Chen, M. Zopf, R. Keil, et al., Highly-efficient extraction of entangled photons from quantum dots using a broadband optical antenna, Nature Communications 9 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    D. H. Ahn, Y. D. Jang, J. S. Baek, et al., A broadband high-brightness quantum-dot double solid immersion lens single photon source , APL Photonics 8, 036102 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lochner, A

    P. Lochner, A. Kurzmann, R. Schott, et al., Contrast of 83\

  18. [26]

    Bremer, C

    L. Bremer, C. Jimenez, S. Thiele, et al., Numerical optimization of single-mode fiber-coupled single-photon sources based on semiconductor quantum dots, Opt. Express 30, 15913--15928 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Schwab, K

    J. Schwab, K. Weber, J. Drozella, et al., Coupling light emission of single-photon sources into single-mode fibers: mode matching, coupling efficiencies, and thermo-optical effects. Optics express 30 18, 32292--32305 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, et al., A bright and fast source of coherent single photons, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 399–403 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ding, Y.-P

    X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, et al., High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient linear optical quantum computing, (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Yan, Optical Electronics: An Introduction (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019)

    J. Yan, Optical Electronics: An Introduction (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Kataoka, Estimation of coupling efficiency of optical fiber by far-field method, Optical review 17, 476–480 (2010)

    K. Kataoka, Estimation of coupling efficiency of optical fiber by far-field method, Optical review 17, 476–480 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Fischbach, A

    S. Fischbach, A. Schlehahn, A. Thoma, et al., Single quantum dot with microlens and 3d-printed micro-objective as integrated bright single-photon source, ACS Photonics 4, 1327--1332 (2017). PMID: 28670600

    2017

  25. [33]

    Schiappelli, R

    F. Schiappelli, R. Kumar, M. Prasciolu, et al., Efficient fiber-to-waveguide coupling by a lens on the end of the optical fiber fabricated by focused ion beam milling, Microelectronic Engineering 73, 397--404 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state...

  27. [35]

    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...

  28. [36]

    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 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.