Uri Guttman wrote:
> i have had the pleasure of doing code review for a client and finding
> this gem:
>
> sub new {
> my $class = shift;
> my %params = (@_);
> my $self = {};
> my $package = caller();
> for my $key ( keys %params ) {
> $self->{$key} = $params{$key};
> }
> bless( $self, $class );
> return $self;
> }
>
> even better than just be a poorly written constructor is that it is
> inside a 'factory' module that is inherited by 80 other modules!!
If that's an example of "poorly written" code in your project, can I come work
there? It at least gets it right, if verbosely.
> anyhow you have two challenges, if you desire. the first is very easy
> but amusing when compared to the original code. rewrite that sub (a
> minimal constructor that takes a key/value list and makes a hash based
> object with no extra checking or work) with the shortest but cleanest
> and clear code you can.
>
> i have a clean 2 line version that would be understood by almost
> anyone. it was the one i benchmarked against the original.
sub new {
my $class = shift;
return bless( [EMAIL PROTECTED], $class );
}
> your second challenge is to golf the same constructor. the char count
> will be between the {} of the sub body as the name and 'sub' are
> constant.
>
> i have two solutions of 33 and 24 chars so you have to beat those. the
> longer one is amusing enough to show it later.
sub new [EMAIL PROTECTED],shift}
Was my first shot at 23. Then I figured I could knock off that range op...
sub new {$a=shift;[EMAIL PROTECTED],$a}
21. And it's even strict clean. :)
--
THIS I COMMAND!
