Re: Is assigning undef required for DESTROY to run?

So it is some kind of a singleton object then? But badly written and with crappy documentation?

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Comment on Re: Is assigning undef required for DESTROY to run?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Is assigning undef required for DESTROY to run? by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Feb 23, 2009 at 22:48 UTC
Yes it is a singleton, yes it is badly written, but no, it says it is a singleton. My code was abusing it. My issue with it is that it didn't protect itself (it stops me from doing everything else with it ;-) Update: Just to be clear, I don't mean that it should protect me (necessarily) from my doing stupid stuff, but protect itself from being able to dump core. Dumping core implies memory corruption implies potential data corruption implies lack of trust in the underlying data storage. --MidLifeXis	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Is assigning undef required for DESTROY to run?
by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Feb 23, 2009 at 22:48 UTC

Yes it is a singleton, yes it is badly written, but no, it says it is a singleton. My code was abusing it. My issue with it is that it didn't protect itself (it stops me from doing everything else with it ;-)

Update: Just to be clear, I don't mean that it should protect me (necessarily) from my doing stupid stuff, but protect itself from being able to dump core. Dumping core implies memory corruption implies potential data corruption implies lack of trust in the underlying data storage.

--MidLifeXis

[reply]