Re^3: Managing capture

in reply to Re^2: Managing capture
in thread Managing capture

Competence is always nice sure, but I don't understand how destructors help. They aren't invoked unless an object is destroyed, which it won't be if it paricipates in a cycle.

I think you understand pefectly :)

If you're accepting callbacks and storing them in an object, you can made a practice of using PadWalker and checking for closures

A slightly simpler check could be made using Devel::Refcount but why bother when PadWalker can do it :)

Comment on Re^3: Managing capture

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Managing capture by jbert (Priest) on Feb 19, 2013 at 12:55 UTC
Yes, that would work. However, the drawbacks of this to me are: the check happens at runtime, not compiletime it requires each method taking a callback to implement the cycle check. that might be in 3rd party code and so require additional wrapping etc.	[reply]
Re^5: Managing capture by Anonymous Monk on Feb 19, 2013 at 13:22 UTC
... Yup, otoh, its cheap check (cheaper than universal competence ) and simpler to write than a pragma like autovivification -- have you looked at that thing? it walks the perl op-tree using c --- scary :)	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom