Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
First, I don't mind at all and I'm sorry for the long time it took me to respond. 1) Actually that is vital for preventing a warning. And you've parsed it incorrectly (which is why you are confused about the semicolon). I knew I didn't do nearly enough with that construct when I found it! You see, I tried to use quite a few things that I didn't know before-hand how they would parse and that I was pretty sure I couldn't look up (Perl has quite a few of these). Those two lines are one of the best examples of that and I'm reluctant to just spill the beans on it as I hope to use it again in future. (: Besides, with just a bit of experimentation, anyone should be able to figure out what is going on. 2) I wrote a Perl script to find those, of course (by brute force). Most of them took nearly no time since I only had to get about two characters to match. In fact, I had the script find the first 10 cases that work either with or without the salt prepended to the "password": but the "password" for "another" took quite a while to calculate. 3) I didn't understand this so I asked for clarification and got satchboost says when I took the '=> ...' out from y No ...N => ..., it wouldn't run. When I changed the 'y' to 'tr', it worked just fine. Why?You can take out the => if you replace it with a comma (or probably even a semicolon). The quoting nature of => isn't needed but you have to separate that expression (or statement) from the next. I can only assume that when you changed it to 'tr' you also did something to separate the expressions. But if not, show me the two cases and I'll be happy to help you figure it out. - tye (but my friends call me "Tye") In reply to (tye)Re3: Do the dishes
by tye
|
|