|No such thing as a small change|
I should've spotted the shift thing myself. It was 4:00 am though. (Excuses, excuses &^) ... that's a crossed-eyed smiley).
The $self = bless \$self, $class; bit was just an idea that I never got around to looking at the effects of as the other stuff was going wrong. The strange thing is that using that rather than , meant that somethings appeared to be working, ie. the hashes in the base class were being populated, though 2 of the 3 hashes were getting two entries. 1 under the subclass reference and one under the base class reference? The 3rd hash (%approved) was only getting a single entry.
I know that all sounds implausible given they are all initialised in the same way, but that is what I was seeing.
I've made a backup of that version and will get back to investingating what was going on once I've finished experimenting with this.
Examine what is said, not who speaks.
In reply to Re: Re: (my?) problem with re-blessed references(?)