To get the headline out of the way; I *have* read the manual.
Odd choice for a title then :)
The surprise is that this is the same process, calling DESTROY (on the same object, but with different references).
Um, I don't find it that surprising :)
You've got file scope lexicals mixing with signals and a forking framework (used in not as documented way) ... all printing to same filehandle
Between changes made in 5.16, safe signals, perlIO and buffering, an occasional duplication of some DESTROY printed messages isn't something I'd worry about .... unless it happens with perl-5.16.3 :)
Also, there is always the possibility that while first Ctrl+C is being cached, and first server is being destroyed, another server is forked ...
I'd try only creating variables inside sub process_request as Net::Server::PreFork documents :)
In reply to Re^3: Is this absurd, or have I not RTFM?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Is this absurd, or have I not RTFM?
by petermogensen
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |