Re^2: Deparse isn't as reliable as I thought

Deparse doesn't parse perl either. It generates perl. Every time Deparse fails to produce source code that compiles back to the same thing, that's a bug. There are no obfuscations that should be undeparseable.

⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

Comment on Re^2: Deparse isn't as reliable as I thought

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Deparse isn't as reliable as I thought by truedfx (Monk) on Mar 04, 2006 at 09:17 UTC
What about `BEGIN { close STDOUT; }`? (No, I'm not entirely serious here.)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Deparse isn't as reliable as I thought by diotalevi (Canon) on Mar 04, 2006 at 16:29 UTC
You might as well be. To deparse that, you'd want B::Deparse to be able to write to a file instead of just STDOUT. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^5: Deparse isn't as reliable as I thought by truedfx (Monk) on Mar 04, 2006 at 19:36 UTC
Yeah, I suppose you're right that that can be worked around. How about a more extreme example then? `BEGIN { undef %:: if %O:: }` I don't think there's any way to deparse that.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Deparse isn't as reliable as I thought by Steve_p (Priest) on Mar 04, 2006 at 13:41 UTC
Agreed. Several modules depend on the proper functioning of B::Deparse. If there is a difference, you should report the bug with perlbug. Please provide the test scripts so this can problem can be investigated.	[reply]