in reply to Let The Games Begin!

Yeah, hey, it's some obfuscated code, I suppose. But I'm not going to bother to even read it, what with that incendiary comment about brian_d_foy. Who, by the way, I wouldn't think about considering an embarrassment to *anything*. And though I've only spoken to him a few times, I can't say I've found anything in his demeanor to indicate that he's mean at all. Quite the opposite.

If you're going to criticize someone, at least do it with complete and grammatically correct sentences, as in:

zshzn is an embarrassment to perlmonks, and is also just not very good at putting together an insult, other than the fact that they put it in their signature to further embarrass themselves every time they post something.

Update: Since I guess this is the obfuscated code section, I probably ought to bring this scolding back on topic. Sort of.

I reformatted your code a bit, and came up with this:

         $b[$_]=chr
        ($_%9?0x2E :
       0xA)for 1..72;
      $d = "1z2s3h4z5n
     19i20s30n31o32t41v
    42e43r44y57c58l59e6
   0a61r   62.";$d=~
    s/\s   +//gx;$b[$1
          ]=$2while$d=~
          /(\d+)(\D)/g;
        $d='brian_d_foy';
        $c='zshzn';shift
         @b;unshift@b,' '
           .$c,chr
         10;push @b,$
        d,chr 0xA; $,=
       chr 0x20; print @b;

[download]

Update2: I misconstrued the context of the .sig, so once I was clued in, changed the adjective in my reformat. And struck out my original scolding. Apologies all around.



--chargrill 
s**lil*;  $*=join'',sort split q**;  s;.*;grr; &&s+(.(.)).+$2$1+; $; =
qq-$_-;s,.*,ahc,;$,.=chop for split q,,,reverse;print for($,,$;,$*,$/)

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Let The Games Begin!
by zshzn (Hermit) on Sep 22, 2006 at 06:22 UTC
    There seems to be some confusion. Particularly with your interpretation of grammar, not my mistake in it, although I admit I didn't make the sentence clear enough. The statement in my signature was "brian d foy's embarrassment to Perl, and just a mean person." That sentence contains a possessive construct. So the signature suggests that I am the embarrassment to Perl, and I am the mean person. I do not mean to suggest that brian d foy is any of these things.

    I also consider my grammar to be acceptable. The comment is in reference to a thread that turned into a slight argument, and particularly a post by brian d foy in which he said "I think you're an embarrasment to Perl in the same way you consider your victim an embarrasment to his company. It seems to me that you are just a mean person." I used the signature as a joke, not meant at brian d foy's expense.

    I agree that maintaining the signature is not classy, and I will only not remove it from this post in order to maintain the context of the thread.

    I'm very disappointed this got off-topic so quickly, and partially posted this obfuscation to balance the negative Tao I inflicted with my last unfortunate thread. chargrill, do you prefer Kramnik or Topalov?

[reply]

      Oh. Given the context, I can see how it's possessive. I admit I missed that particular comment in the other thread. Granted, I didn't read that other thread in depth until I started wondering why you had a problem with brian_d_foy. I think you can see that without the stated context, your .sig could be interpreted as a grammatically incorrect flame against Mr. Foy.

      I'll admit to not following chess, either.

      Given the self-deprecating context of your sig (apologies for mis-reading it), I'll update my re-format.



      --chargrill 
      s**lil*;  $*=join'',sort split q**;  s;.*;grr; &&s+(.(.)).+$2$1+; $; =
qq-$_-;s,.*,ahc,;$,.=chop for split q,,,reverse;print for($,,$;,$*,$/)

      [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
        Thanks for the positive reply. I was afraid I was making more enemies, quickly, and I really don't have any intention of that. I've learned a couple lessons. Such as, never publicize an inside-joke, or at least make one of the words link to the context. And try to keep the english as clear as possible, because people read quickly and often it makes more sense to assume negativity than to analyze otherwise. And of course, try to remain positive in general.

        Your original code change was ok, in the sense that the obfuscation is very basic and unoriginal. There were a number of little things I could have used to hide the code a bit better, but most of them are futile and often come across as cheap tricks. I did refer to it as "humble" in the original post, at least. As for your reshaping, nothing wrong with that. I modelled mine fairly well after the knights of my chess set.

[reply]

In Section Obfuscated Code