On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:32:50 -0000, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> I don't think that making use of "use" and "no" would be shorter and
> far more Perlish. Also this allows us to switch off the
> modifications.
Uh, why didn't I think of that =)
> > This is getting me thinking though:
> >
> > $*RUNTIME.Memory.GarbageCollector.dispose($object); # force it,
> > # even if it should be alive
>
> Isn't that what we have undefine(...) for?
No:
my Dog $spot .= new;
my $spot_II = $spot; # another reference
$*RUNTIME.Memory.GarbageCollector.dispose($spot);
# $spot_II is undefined now, because the object was disposed
Furthermore:
my Dog $spot .= new;
my $spot_II = $spot;
undefine($spot); # still referenced by a root set member
undefine($spot_II); # no more refs
# the object may still be alive, if it didn't say it needed
# timely destruction
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: /me spreads pj3Ar using 0wnage: neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!
pgpnaC1QBZzwK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
