You are wrong. The reblessing does acomplish what mla wants. It will ensure that the DESTROY doesn't do its work agan and it will even ensure no other method does anything after the DESTROY. And if mla changes the warn() to carp it might even help him in finding the places where is the object being used after it should have been destroyed.
I'd do one more change though. I'd move the reblessing into the DESTROY:
package Null; use strict; use Carp; our $AUTOLOAD; sub AUTOLOAD { carp __PACKAGE__ . " $AUTOLOAD CALLED" } package Foo; use strict; use Carp; sub new { bless [], __PACKAGE__ } sub DESTROY { my $self = shift; carp (__PACKAGE__ . " DESTROY CALLED"); bless $self, 'Null'; } package main; my $s1 = Foo->new; my $s2 = $s1; $s1->DESTROY; $s2->DoSomething();
You are right though that in the long run mla should go over his code and either get rid of any cyclical references or at least weaken()s them.
Jenda
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code
will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
-- Rick Osborne
Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature
In reply to Re: Re: explicitly calling destructor
by Jenda
in thread explicitly calling destructor
by mla
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |