Re: RFC from a newbie: Method References
Michael G Schwern wrote: Hmmm... an object which contains a method reference which contains a referent to itself. Yup. I don't know why some people think that circular references are complex ;-) Something like this would be nice in a class that creates method references--it would simply need to keep a list of referred objects, and have an explicit destructor that iterates through the references and undefs them. Of course, calling the destructor would be optional where no circular reference exists. Yes, you could keep a list/hash of what you created (as weak references) and explicitly destroy them but I don't think that would help. Consider the following... following deleted... Which doesn't solve the problem... and I don't have any better ideas. No, neither do I. So far I've been undef'ing method references semi-manually (since there are specific event callback hooks in any widget, I just need to undef these), but this isn't Lazy. Maybe a flash of inspiration will come over Christmas...
Larry update
I just got off the phone with Larry. He's been laid up for three weeks with a trip to Japan followed by a virus from Japan. He's on his feet again, and continuing to work through the RFCs. He's changing the way he's doing it. Now he's going to try to find clusters of RFCs on a particular topic, decide, and let us know. That way he can release his verdicts bit-by-bit (regexps, objects, etc.) He's also thinking about the way to spec perl6. Take perl5's documentation and modify? Take the Camel and modify? It was good to talk to him again. I had been afraid that he'd given up and begun learning Python :-) Nat
Re: Larry update
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:33:36AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: I just got off the phone with Larry. He's been laid up for three weeks with a trip to Japan followed by a virus from Japan. He's on So Perl 6 will be...Ruby? :-) -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
