== Quote from Zeev Suraski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])'s article > If you're talking about destruction that honors reference counts (which has > nothing to do with order, it's still randomly-ordered), then yes, it's > *generally* ok.
Yes, I was talking about that point.
> But that what we had before, and it had tons of > problems. For instance, do you want to give up the ability to access the > symbol table (e.g. $GLOBALS) from destructors? Because the symtable > elements won't have anything to protect them from being deleted, their > refcount is 1. Just in case you're willing to live without it, it did use > to be that way, and people did complain :)
Do you mean that global variables have their refcount "locked to 1", or "never less than 1"?
For sure if they are "locked to 1", I now understand why destruction of such objects can't reflect "dependences".
They're not locked to 1, and nothing in a symbol table will ever be with a refcount of less than 1... But generally, all global variables (or for that matter, all variables period) have a refcount of 1, unless you do something 'special'.
Zeev
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
