Re: Per-object DESTROY

Well, why do you use the name on_cleanup() since it's pretty obvious you know about DESTROY?

In other words, you should use the sub/method name DESTROY for per-object destroys.

"What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"

Comment on Re: Per-object DESTROY

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Per-object DESTROY by diotalevi (Canon) on Jul 08, 2007 at 00:53 UTC
It's not my object. I'd need to either install a DESTROY method into the Archive::Extract object violating its implementation or write an object which I could hang my DESTROY-time code off of. tilly's ReleaseAction handles this case nicely. I just pass in my destroy code and make sure the ReleaseAction object is destroyed at the same time as the object. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^3: Per-object DESTROY by varian (Chaplain) on Jul 08, 2007 at 13:53 UTC
ReleaseAction would require you to synchronize the out-of-scope moment between the two objects. Wouldn't the classy way be to subclass Archive::Extract just inheriting its methods, and to implement your own DESTROY method in the subclass that invokes SUPER::DESTROY as its last action?	[reply]
Re^4: Per-object DESTROY by diotalevi (Canon) on Jul 08, 2007 at 18:19 UTC
In this case, the destruction moment isn't really identical. It would have been cheap and easy to join the two and it was my first thought. A better idea is to discard the archive object as soon as I've used it up and then retain the cleanup handle until I'm finished working with its extracted contents. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]