At 17:33 12/02/2001 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 11:28 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>Couldn't we simply (for non-implementer values of simply) provide a way for
>>people to ask for finalization on an object ? Given that most of the time
>>it isn't needed, it wouldn't be too much of a burden for programmers to
>>have to write i_want_some_finalization($object, [finalization params]) ?
>
>Sure. Y'know, maybe we could even have a sub with a special name! Maybe...
>DESTROY? :)
Yes, I'm vaguely aware of that possibility :)
I believe I misexpressed myself. What I meant was re non-refcount GC and
predictability of destruction. If the author wanted refcount triggered
destruction for a given object he'd say so explicitly. That would make it
easy to separate the objects that require deterministic destruction from
those that can be left to the more sophisticated GC.
>Adding something like:
>
> package foo;
> use attrs qw(cleanup_sub);
>
>would be nice, but I don't know that he'll go for it. (Though it's the only
>way I can think of to avoid AUTOLOAD being considered a potential destructor)
Yes that would be nice indeed.
-- robin b.
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
