Re^2: A work of art

Calling it a bug may be a bit premature. Perhaps %fields holds the default state of a new object, and new isn't intended to take parameters. Those fields should be manipulated otherwise. At the very least, $self isn't a reference to %fields itself, but a copy of the contents of %fields.

There is a completely plausible explanation for this code, IMO. Without greater context, it's impossible to see. Besides, it doesn't, IMO, detract from the rest of the OP's post and probably didn't need to be singled out.

Comment on Re^2: A work of art

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A work of art by diotalevi (Canon) on Feb 14, 2006 at 01:04 UTC
Ya sure. I disagree. Oh well? %fields isn't named like it's supposed to provide defaults, it's named like the author intended it to be more local. If the thing really is some defaults then it ought to look like it. It's not good code, as is. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^4: A work of art by Anonymous Monk on Feb 14, 2006 at 19:07 UTC
As a work of modern art, it must have been intended to be ugly, flawed, and comment-provoking. ;-) -- Ytrew, who really doesn't get modern art...	[reply]
Re^5: A work of art by turo (Friar) on Feb 15, 2006 at 10:18 UTC
... perl-cubism? or perl-expresionism? ... `perl -Te 'print map { chr((ord)-((10,20,2,7)[$i++])) } split //,"turo"'`	[reply] [d/l]