Great! It seems to me that destructors make sense if they are public
because you can have private methods in a class but not private classes.
So I think there are reason for Arnulf for pondering about that.
As a side annotation. Since you are testing the code in trunk I would
like to ask you if you tested mod_rivet also with the worker MPM.
regards
-- Massimo
On 09/05/2015 03:42 PM, Anton Osennikov wrote:
Hi Massimo
05.09.2015 18:07, Massimo Manghi пишет:
Arnulf Wiedemann who is the person behind Itcl. He might be interested
to know how you package nemoweb managed to let the Itcl naming scheme
stumble...
It's a bit funny.. Several destructors was defined with option
"protected", without any practical reason for this.
Inside master interpreter attempt to delete object of such class causes
regular error message. But inside slave interpreter it causes signal
Aborted.
Demo:
$ cat itcl4-protected-destructor.tcl
puts "Itcl protected destructor effects.."
puts "Tcl [info patchlevel]"
interp create slave
slave eval {
puts "Itcl [package require Itcl]"
itcl::class A {protected destructor {}}
A ::b
puts "-- itcl::delete object --"
catch {itcl::delete object ::b} res
puts $res
A ::c
}
puts "-- namespace delete :: --"
namespace delete ::
$ tclsh itcl4-protected-destructor.tcl
Itcl protected destructor effects..
Tcl 8.6.4
Itcl 4.0.3
-- itcl::delete object --
bad option "destructor": should be one of...
b cget -option
b configure ?-option? ?value -option value...?
b isa className
-- namespace delete :: --
Tcl_AppendStringsToObj called with shared object
Aborted
If you can figure this out you may open a ticket on that with core.tcl.tk
OK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
