>On 5/18/07, Greg London <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >sub replace_sub_for_instance {
>> > my ($object, $subroutine_name, $new_subroutine) = @_;
>> > no strict 'refs';
>> > my $old_subroutine = \&$subroutine_name
>> > or die "Subroutine $subroutine_name not found";
>> > my $object_name = refaddr($object);
>> > *$subroutine_name = sub {
>> > my $self = $_[0];
>> > if (refaddr($self) eq $object_name) {
>> > goto $new_subroutine;
>> > }
>> > else {
>> > goto $old_subroutine;
>> > }
>> > };
>> >}
>> >
>> >Note that I was careful not to capture the object of interest in the
>> >subroutine because I didn't want to mess up a DESTROY.
>>
>> I'm just a tad confused about that last bit.
>> There may be advantages to using goto over recalling the method,
>> but I'm not sure how shifting the object off @_ will mess up a DESTROY call.
>
>You're looking at the wrong part of the code. I'm referring to how I
>made sure to capture refaddr before creating the anonymous sub so that
>the anonymous sub did not have $object in it anywhere. That keeps
>$object from being in the closure, which means that $object won't be
>kept alive by a reference from the subroutine.
Ah, take my original code:
my $instance_to_skip = $mut;
my $intercept = sub {
my $obj=shift(@_);
if($obj eq $instance_to_skip) {
return;
} else {
$obj->(@_);
}
};
And change the first line to
my $instance_to_skip = $mut . '';
This forces the instance to be stringified,
and then you're storing the string in your
closure, not a reference.
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
