At 10:32 AM 2/13/2001 -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:16 PM 2/13/01 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>>On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:09:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
>>Certainly AUTOLOAD gets
>> > called if DESTROY is called but not defined ... just
>> > like any other method.
>>The idea is [for Larry] to declare "no, it isn't". Otherwise, you have to
>>do refcounting (or somthing like it) for DESTROY to get called at the right
>>time if the class (or any superclass) has an AUTOLOAD, which is expensive.
>>
>>Perhaps you could declare, but not define, DESTROY to have AUTOLOAD called
>>for DESTROY, and have DESTROY called as soon as the last ref goes out of
>>scope. (IE have a sub DESTROY; line.)
>
>This may be a naive question, but what is the benefit - aside from
>consistency, and we don't need to rehash the litany on that - to AUTOLOAD
>getting called for DESTROY? I've never actually seen any code that makes
>use of it. I have grown somewhat tired of writing, and teaching, "return
>if $AUTOLOAD =~ /:DESTROY$/", however.
I have no idea. It's legal, though, so unless it's declared illegal (which
is fine with me) it needs to be supported.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
