--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:17:53AM +0900, Christopher Dicely wrote:
>=20
> The #clone based method presented upthread (which wasn't mine, it was
> 7stud's) works perfectly for the data and requirements presented. It
> doesn't work if, in addition to wanting to lose changes to the passed
> hashes, one also wants to lose any changes resulting from manipulation
> of the data in the hashes, but that wasn't requested.

Are you seriously claiming that the person's statements seemed to you to
indicate a desire for the data to change in the original data structure?

Seriously?


>=20
> That is, since you work on a local copy of each hash, mutating methods
> called on the hash won't have any lasting effect, but mutating methods
> called on keys or values extracted from the (local copy of the) hash
> will affect the objects stored in the original hash. Avoiding this kind
> of effect was not requested.

It really seemed implied from where I was sitting.


>=20
> Sure, but its way overkill for it. You only need deep copies if you
> have requirements that weren't stated (avoiding effects from mutating
> methods called not on the hashes being passed but on the keys or values
> of the hashes.)

I'm not sure why you're so pedantically splitting hairs when the actual
intent seemed pretty obvious: no changes.


> >
> > 2. Is there some less-convoluted approach that works for the more
> > complex needs you presented?
>=20
> I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I think you're playing dumb.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk3BuOoACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKX2XwCdHe6vPhY3PfKDsoZVtQZkQTkv
8+0AoPBJ1tDOp7fkYZ/rHVm33ApP/1Ok
=sZg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:17:53AM +0900, Christopher Dicely wrote:
>=20
> The #clone based method presented upthread (which wasn't mine, it was
> 7stud's) works perfectly for the data and requirements presented. It
> doesn't work if, in addition to wanting to lose changes to the passed
> hashes, one also wants to lose any changes resulting from manipulation
> of the data in the hashes, but that wasn't requested.

Are you seriously claiming that the person's statements seemed to you to
indicate a desire for the data to change in the original data structure?

Seriously?


>=20
> That is, since you work on a local copy of each hash, mutating methods
> called on the hash won't have any lasting effect, but mutating methods
> called on keys or values extracted from the (local copy of the) hash
> will affect the objects stored in the original hash. Avoiding this kind
> of effect was not requested.

It really seemed implied from where I was sitting.


>=20
> Sure, but its way overkill for it. You only need deep copies if you
> have requirements that weren't stated (avoiding effects from mutating
> methods called not on the hashes being passed but on the keys or values
> of the hashes.)

I'm not sure why you're so pedantically splitting hairs when the actual
intent seemed pretty obvious: no changes.


> >
> > 2. Is there some less-convoluted approach that works for the more
> > complex needs you presented?
>=20
> I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I think you're playing dumb.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk3BuOoACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKX2XwCdHe6vPhY3PfKDsoZVtQZkQTkv
8+0AoPBJ1tDOp7fkYZ/rHVm33ApP/1Ok
=sZg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----