(Ovid) Re: pseudo.pl

Not only does this not answer my question, it just helps to confirm my opinion that pseudo-hashes are evil, evil things. You should be ashamed of yourself. :)

Hie thee and thy code to the nether regions whence you were spawned, I adjure thee!

Or something like that.

Cheers,
Ovid

Update: As a bit of a spoiler, read Are pseudo-hashes worth the effort? and then reread the node above. In effect, he's creating a pseudo-hash like the following:

$ph = [{1=>2,3=>4,5=>6,7=>8,9=>10,11=>12,13=>14,15=>16,17=>18,19=>20,2
+1=>22,23=>24,25=>26,27=>28},
           'P','a','b','c','d','e','f','g','h','i','j','k','l','m',
           'n','o','p','q','r','s','t','u','v','w','x','y','z','J',' '
+ ];
[download]

The & and | that he uses are bitwise operators. You should be able to follow it from there.

I've noticed spoilers like this on a couple of bits of obfuscation. Do any monks have any strong feelings on this one way or the other?

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.

Comment on (Ovid) Re: pseudo.pl Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (Ovid) Re: pseudo.pl by Blue (Hermit) on Dec 13, 2000 at 10:59 UTC
I prefer spoilers, though I consider it polite to mark as a spoiler and give people a chance to avoid if they want. I've found that spoilers are in some ways good obfuscation (& Perl) learning opportunities for others, a challanging (hopefully) exercise for the spoiler-writer, and praise for the author of the obfuscation. The last one may seem a bit odd, but others determinig that your obfuscation is deep enough to warrent explanation is an ego stroke. And why they do it and get a few things off, even better. {grin} I must admit, I've learned more about the 'ugly underbelly' of Perl from reading obfuscations, and about little used functionality from writing them. =Blue ...you might be eaten by a grue...	[reply]
Re: (Ovid) Re: pseudo.pl by cogent (Monk) on Dec 14, 2000 at 01:53 UTC
I've contributed one spoiler so far, so I'm a bit biased, but it seems to me that there's not a heck of a lot to talk about in this section if spoliers aren't included. monk_1: Gee, that code sure is hard to read. monk_2: Yup. Aside from that, most of my reasons for supporting the inclusion of spoilers mirror Blue's. I won't duplicate them here.	[reply]
Re: (Ovid) Re: pseudo.pl by a (Friar) on Dec 15, 2000 at 10:45 UTC
++ to spoilers on these #$@$%!^^^^! obfustifivivacations. I'm dead on useless as to figuring them out, but when a, er, wiser monk than I leads the way, I learn 10,000 things. the the a	[reply]