in reply to JAPH - more obscure than obfuscated...

I'm not sure I'm getting what you think I'm getting ... ;-)

My output looks like this: 

1:2'E&T8DD-'# N$L3HW#7&

[download]
I think it has something to do with being on a different platform and/or different version of perl. ;-) (Linux/x86-32, perl 5.8.8)

It is, however, consistent. As I expected. And, I'm sure, as you expected. ;-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: JAPH - more obscure than obfuscated...
by rhesa (Vicar) on Nov 29, 2006 at 16:42 UTC
    Heh. FWIW, I get the same output on perl 5.8.4 (both x86-32 and x86-64), 5.8.7 and 5.8.8.
[reply]

      Heh - probably OS specific (Win2k for me).

      I get JUST ANOTHER PERL HACKER (but you probably guessed that ;)

      map{$a=1-$_/10;map{$d=$a;$e=$b=$_/20-2;map{($d,$e)=(2*$d*$e+$a,$e**
2-$d**2+$b);$c=$d**2+$e**2>4?_:0}1..99;print$c}0..59;print$/}0..20;

      [download]
      Tom Melly, pm@tomandlu.co.uk
[reply]
[d/l]

        For some wierd reason, even though perl reimplements half of the c library, it uses the library random generator even on systems where it's not really good. This has the consequence that you can't rely on rand returning more than four random digits and also that random numbers are highly platform dependent.

[reply]

In Section Obfuscated Code