While I agree that there might be a bit of XY under the question, the problem is not because garbage collection does not happen soon enough. Since the closure (the sub reference in *One::foo) holds the $self scalar, the reference count never falls down to 0, so even if stevieb's program ran for a longer period of time, the object would not be garbage collected. Your solution though, by deleting the sub at the end of the scope also happens to delete its hold over the reference, which makes the deletion of the object possible.

Somehow I hadn't grokked that in the scenario that $thing is a Count it gets cached in the sub. That is a problem solvable via weaken by saying

sub mock {
    my $thing = shift;
    my $self;

    if (ref($thing) eq __PACKAGE__){
        $self = $thing;
    }
    else {
        $self = bless {}, __PACKAGE__;
    }
    my $closure_self = $self;
    use Scalar::Util 'weaken';
    weaken $closure_self;

    $self->{sub} = \&One::foo;
    *One::foo = sub { $closure_self->{x} = 'x'; return "baz\n"; };
    return $self;
}
[download]

which outputs

foo
baz
destroying...
foo
[download]

as per the spec. Note that the $closure_self misdirect is necessary because of the Class method invocation:

print One::foo();
{
    #my $count = Count->new;
    my $bar = Count->mock;
    print One::foo();
}
print One::foo();
[download]

which would yield

foo
Use of uninitialized value in subroutine dereference at script.pl line
+ 31.
destroying...
baz
baz
    (in cleanup) Unable to create sub named "" at script.pl line 31.
[download]

Because $self immediately goes out of scope. It's still a weird misdirection since you are localizing a subroutine clobber and not changing an object behavior.

---

#11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.

Hello kennethk, You'll have to post a full code for that last output, because I have read your post more than five times and still don't understand the difference between weakening $self or weakening a copy of it.

Because $self immediately goes out of scope.

Well, $self and $closure_self are both lexicals of the same scope, so they both go out of scope at the same time, and the closure can close over any of the two and it shouldn't make any difference. By the way, here under perl v5.20, with my proposed code, I could never reproduce your last output:
main.pl

use warnings;
no warnings 'redefine';
use strict;

use lib '.';
use Count;

print One::foo();
{
    my $bar = Count->mock;
    print One::foo();
}
print One::foo();
[download]

Count.pm

package One;

sub foo {
    return "foo\n";
}
1;

package Count;

use Scalar::Util qw/weaken/; 

sub new {
    return bless {}, shift;
}
sub unmock {
    my $self = shift;
    *One::foo = \&{ $self->{sub} };
}
sub mock {
    my $thing = shift;
    my $self;

    if (ref($thing) eq __PACKAGE__){
        $self = $thing;
    }
    else {
        $self = bless {}, __PACKAGE__;
    }
    
    weaken $self;
    $self->{sub} = \&One::foo;
    *One::foo = sub { $self->{x} = 'x'; return "baz\n"; };
    return $self;
}
sub DESTROY {
    my $self = shift;
    print "destroying...\n";
    $self->unmock;
}
1;
[download]

Thanks kennethk.

I also found that instead of doing the object redirect, I can weaken() inside of the sub re-definition on $self directly:

*$sub = sub {
    weaken $self if ! isweak $self;
    ...
}
[download]

I've been doing some testing with both scenarios to see if without the $closure_self, weird issues crop up.

The problem you are hitting is that there is no guaranteed time for garbage collection. Therefore, garbage collection hasn't happen on the very short time scale for your test.

You must be thinking of some language other than Perl v5. You describe a weakness of many languages. But Perl v5 doesn't have that problem.

Sorry, I neglected to correct that chunk with the rest of the conversation. Updated appropriately.

---

#11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.