Re^2: lexicals are all the same scalar and never go out of scope?

in reply to Re: lexicals are all the same scalar and never go out of scope?
in thread lexicals are all the same scalar and never go out of scope?

By your logic, the following never deallocates the referenced array:

use Devel::Peek;
$x = [];
Dump($x, 1);
$x = undef;
$x = [];
Dump($x, 1);
[download]

SV = IV(0x51a420) at 0x51a424
  REFCNT = 1
  FLAGS = (ROK)
  RV = 0x61b29c
  SV = PVAV(0x61c248) at 0x61b29c
    REFCNT = 1
    FLAGS = ()
    ARRAY = 0x0
    FILL = -1
    MAX = -1
    ARYLEN = 0x0
    FLAGS = (REAL)
SV = IV(0x51a420) at 0x51a424
  REFCNT = 1
  FLAGS = (ROK)
  RV = 0x61b29c
  SV = PVAV(0x61c248) at 0x61b29c
    REFCNT = 1
    FLAGS = ()
    ARRAY = 0x0
    FILL = -1
    MAX = -1
    ARYLEN = 0x0
    FLAGS = (REAL)
[download]

But that's just not true. It just got reallocated at the same address. Looking at the address is not meaningful.

(I'm not saying that it isn't the same scalar. I'm saying you haven't shown that it is the same scalar.)

Comment on Re^2: lexicals are all the same scalar and never go out of scope? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: lexicals are all the same scalar and never go out of scope? by Eliya (Vicar) on Dec 06, 2011 at 10:32 UTC
By your logic, the following never deallocates the referenced array: ... This isn't even remotely what I said. I said the scalar (i.e. the SV, what you call TARG) is the same, and a copy of it is created when a reference to it is pushed onto the array — nothing more. That's in essence the same you pointed out in your reply.	[reply]
Re^4: lexicals are all the same scalar and never go out of scope? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 06, 2011 at 10:44 UTC
I said the scalar (i.e. the SV, what you call TARG) is the same, You also posted a code snippet and its output. With no explanation, the implication is that it supports the accompanying claim. And it does no such thing. That's in essence the same you pointed out in your reply. Reaching the correct conclusion doesn't make how you reached it correct.	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom