Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2004
At 1:21 PM -0500 12/2/04, Mark Jason Dominus wrote: > > Only in normal destruction. It _cant_ make the guarantee that you say it >> does or circular structures would never be broken during global destruction: > >Yes, you're right. But in this case there is no circular structure. > >As I mentioned to Christoph Haas, our surprise at this situation might >be the result of our misunderstanding of global destruction semantics. >I am still willing to admit that, but it also seems to me that the >present behavior is unnecessarily bad. > >> That's why I was suggesting the counter approach. At least then you could >> know that the objects would be destroyed in a defined order. > >I misunderstood your suggestion. Thanks for explaining it. > >It still seems to me that Perl's final destruction should have a first >pass in which objects are destroyed normally, in >reference-count-order, followed by a second pass to take care of any >remaining circularly-referenced objects. Or alternatively, that the >outer object in my example should be destroyed at the end of program >execution, but before the global destruction paqhse is initiated. I think it would be possible to create a module (pragma) that would ensure an orderly (as in lifo) destruction of objects. The only thing I miss is a way to make sure a specific END code block is executed as the very last END block. Is there a way to do this? Possibly in XS? Liz