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!!!!!!!!!!!
Description: PGP signature