Re: A metamethod to be called when a variable goes out of scope?

[Marc Balmer <marc@...>]

Well, I did not propose to add it, just asking what the impact could be. But of course I have a use case for it in mind… ;)


> Am 18.10.2023 um 17:52 schrieb Sean Conner <sean@conman.org>:
> 
> It was thus said that the Great Marc Balmer once stated:
>> When a variable is marked as to-be-closed with the <close> tag and it goes
>> out of scope, the __close metamethod is called.
>> 
>> What impact would calling a metamethod have, that is called when a
>> variable goes out of scope and that has said metamethod defined?  Would
>> the check for the presence of such a metamethod already introduce an
>> inacceptable overhead?
>> 
>> I am thinking of something along e.g.  __scope(), to be called when a
>> variable goes out of scope?
> 
>  There were several such proposals in 2019 for this.  From my notes, the
> following proposals were made:
> 
>        __scope_exit
>        __escape
>        __rip
>        __descope
>        __enscope
>        __notinuse
>        __not_in_use
>        __done
>        __gone
>        __dead
>        __deassign
>        __on_scope_exit
> 
>  I've yet to go back and find references to individual threads about them.
> 
>  -spc