I think you want to avoid defining Child::DESTROY() if Child->can("DESTROY") but ! defined &Child::DESTROY so that Parent::DESTROY() continues to get called (which you will have replaced with an exception-eating wrapper).
- tye
In reply to Re^6: RFC: Acme::ExceptionEater (can)
by tye
in thread RFC: Acme::ExceptionEater
by kyle
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |