At 10:32 AM 2/13/2001 -0800, Peter Scott wrote: >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. I have no idea. It's legal, though, so unless it's declared illegal (which is fine with me) it needs to be supported. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk