Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from February 2001
At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote: >On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote: >Certainly AUTOLOAD gets > > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just > > like any other method. >The idea is [for Larry] to declare "no, it isn't". Otherwise, you have to >do refcounting (or somthing like it) for DESTROY to get called at the right >time if the class (or any superclass) has an AUTOLOAD, which is expensive. > >Perhaps you could declare, but not define, DESTROY to have AUTOLOAD called >for DESTROY, and have DESTROY called as soon as the last ref goes out of >scope. (IE have a sub DESTROY; line.) This may be a naive question, but what is the benefit - aside from consistency, and we don't need to rehash the litany on that - to AUTOLOAD getting called for DESTROY? I've never actually seen any code that makes use of it. I have grown somewhat tired of writing, and teaching, "return if $AUTOLOAD =~ /:DESTROY$/", however. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design TechnologiesThread Previous | Thread Next