Re^2: Lost anonymous subs

Thanks for information! Things got clearer. And what about closure behaviour? The sub WILL need a copy of @arr, won't it? I cannot understand what «a pointer to the current binding of @arr» is, pardon my ignorance, the term is not in perlref or perlsub :(

--kap

Comment on Re^2: Lost anonymous subs Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Lost anonymous subs by diotalevi (Canon) on Dec 09, 2004 at 15:33 UTC
This is all perl internals, perlguts stuff. The CV you get in $code has an ->OUTSIDE C pointer to the PADLIST that @arr lives in and then the compiled code has a note on which index in that PADLIST it is suppposed to access the @arr at. So it isn't a copy. The code in $code works with the real, original @arr, not a copy.	[reply]
Re^4: Lost anonymous subs by kappa (Chaplain) on Dec 09, 2004 at 15:49 UTC
Please, say that the comments down there in the code are right and I will rest calm, thankful and a bit more knowledgable :) `my $code; { my @arr = (9) x 1000_000; $code = sub { @arr }; } # here @arr got out of the scope but is not freed as # there's a ref from inside $code closure # which enables $code do things with the array when called undef $code; # only now that million of nines has gone away # it always existed in exactly one copy` [download] --kap	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Lost anonymous subs by diotalevi (Canon) on Dec 09, 2004 at 16:46 UTC
Your comments were unintelligble Here is what happens. Your million nines will continue to stick around as long as $code does. Once you lose the last link to $code then your million nines will also be gone.	[reply]
Re^6: Lost anonymous subs by ysth (Canon) on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:41 UTC


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks