Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2009
> The following patch implements a new special variable,
> @{^COMPILE_SCOPE_CONTAINER}, which allows implementing the behaviour required
> by the current users of the %^H + Scope::Guard and B::Hooks::EndOfScope users.
I'm all in favour of this change.
Another suggestion was to make ${^COMPILE_SCOPE_CONTAINER}[0] a reference to the @{^COMPILE_SCOPE_CONTAINER} of the previous scope instead of copying the previous values in the new array. I would have loved this too, but Florian said on IRC that it feared it would be more difficult to implement. I personnaly think it'd be just as simple as pushing a ref in the array and that the sole nature of the feature would ensure that the refcounts are correctly handled.
Does someone think it'd make a valuable addition that it worths to spend some time researching?
>> Oh, snap! I'm just in the middle of writing a more general solution to
>> the same problem, which I've currently got at
>> http://github.com/mauzo/perl/tree/blocks . My idea was not to use a
>> special variable, but rather a new special block, SCOPECHECK, which gets
>> called at the end of compiling the current scope. My intention was to
>> implement ENTER/LEAVE/&c. from Perl 6 at the same time.
>>
>
> I'm glad to see I'm not the only one fighting against this problem.
>
> I don't know which approach would be better. However, I must note that a
> variable offers some kind of introspection for data attached to a scope
> during its compile time. How that is useful is also demonstrated by the
> test, which is part of my patch.
>
I prefer the variable approach because not only it provides some means
of introspection, but also because it's easier to conditionnaly store a
destructor that way than with a block. Finally, adding a new variable is
just much simpler to implement.
The new control blocks from Perl 6 would definitely make a great
addition to Perl 5, but they're a different issue that the dynamic scope
end one.
Vincent.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next