develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2009

Re: [perl #67838] lvalue substr keeping lexical alive

Thread Previous | Thread Next
David Nicol
November 17, 2009 11:28
Re: [perl #67838] lvalue substr keeping lexical alive
Message ID:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Eric Brine <> wrote:

> If the scalar is tied or has other magic it could be bad to delay its
>> destructor,
> I must have been tired, but I forgot magic had destructors. I may have
> underestimated the impact. I definitely understated it.

>> > - Don't fix until a better solution is found.
>> I wouldn't mind knowing a way to identify scalars held alive like this,
>> so as to excuse them from Test::Weaken or similar leak checking.
> Since TARG variables are stored in the pad, you could go through the pad
> looking for PVLVs that have associated variables. It may not be the
> answer (any maybe you can refine it by looking at the flags), but it
> be a very good heuristic.

1: are there situations where a RAIL object will be the subject of one of
these functions?
(resource acquisition is locking is the big design pattern that relies on
timely destruction)

2: can TARG be a weak reference using current weak reference technology?
That was mentioned earlier in this thread, and seems from a high and distant
level to be the way to go. What's wrong with that suggestion? When does TARG
hold the last reference to something, and if never, can TARG manipulation
stuff simply leave reference counts alone?

"In the case of an infinite collection, the question of the existence of a
choice function is problematic"

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About