Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 05:55 PM 12/7/00 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I think I'd just as soon always call DESTROY in a predicable manner
> > > and not do *anything* perlish at GC time. If nothing else it means
> > > that we do
At 05:55 PM 12/7/00 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think I'd just as soon always call DESTROY in a predicable manner
> > and not do *anything* perlish at GC time. If nothing else it means
> > that we don't have to worry about having a valid perl context
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I'd just as soon always call DESTROY in a predicable manner
> and not do *anything* perlish at GC time. If nothing else it means
> that we don't have to worry about having a valid perl context handy
> when the GC runs. (Since threading the thing i
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:24:06AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I think I'd just as soon always call DESTROY in a predicable manner and not
> do *anything* perlish at GC time. If nothing else it means that we don't
> have to worry about having a valid perl context handy when the GC runs.
> (Sin
