Problems? Is your data what you think it is? | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
The prospect of binding a slurpy rw hash worries me, because if it scares Larry, I figure there must be something frightening about it. I can imagine folks here on Perlmonks fooling around in the obfuscation section reminiscing about when obfuscated code was mostly a bunch of punctuation and you could just read it carefully and deobfuscate it in your head. I'm also a little bit on edge about the whole subrule thing. I mean, that's powerful, sure, but it could be another way to make code hard to follow, also, because the subrules can be changed between calls of the main rule. I envision self-modifying code that breeds new generations of itself, tests them for efficiency and terseness, picks the "best", rince, repeat... "Back in my day, anyone could deobfuscate a good JAPH in twenty minutes... we didn't have these fancy new-fangled recursive genetic JAPHs... those things turn your brain to mush, you know..." OTOH, I'm thoroughly excited about the Perl6 object model.
In reply to binding a slurpy rw hash
by jonadab
|
|