sub q_{print};$_=eval q.q;
# Just another Perl Hacker
;;.;s;.+?\b;;s;eval qq;q_;

[download]
--
Casey

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: Obfuscated? no.... ;-)
by mcwee (Pilgrim) on Jun 02, 2000 at 22:24 UTC
    Is this obfuscation?

    I think you could argue both ways: sure, the outcome is pretty obvious, but the manner by which the script gets to that outcome is circumlocucious. Opinions, please?

    The Autonomic Pilot

[reply]
      Of course that is obfuscation... and it's neat and clean...

      I thought it funny that a ( suposed :-) comment is used in the code...

      I could have said this though... if you like... is it good enough for you? 

      %_=(Just=>q=%20==>another=>q=%20==>Perl=>q=%20==>Hacker=>q=%0A==>)=>
print map{$_->[2]=~s=[^->]?(.[^->])=chr(hex($1))=e;$_->[0]=>$_->[2]} 
sort{$b->[1]cmp$a->[1]}map{[$_=>m=[^->]+([aeiou])==>$_{$_}]}keys %_;
      Did I mention that I always do my 'one liners' under strict and -w

      I belive that good practices should go through every code you write... but that's another thread. 

      --
Casey
[reply]
        Hell, the original JAPH was good enough for me-- I'm sorta charmed by its duality. Hidden-in-plain-view, after a fashion.

        The Autonomic Pilot

[reply]
        Hell, the original JAPH was good enough for me-- I'm sorta charmed by its duality. Hidden-in-plain-view, after a fashion.

        The Autonomic Pilot

[reply]
        Actually, I don't find either too obfuscated. You can tell exactly what each is doing just by looking at it, and after reading the code over once or twice you can see how it is doing it. Maybe I would say they are 'neato', but not very obfuscated.

        Cheers,
        KM

[reply]
(zdog) RE: Obfuscated? no.... ;-)
by zdog (Priest) on Jun 04, 2000 at 20:51 UTC
    Obfuscated? no.... ;-) was a perfect title for the obfuscation you made, because it was kind of obvious what it would be. But I have to applaud the way it was made.

    -- zdog (Zenon Zabsinki)

[reply]

Back to Obfuscated Code