Re: New destructors implementation

== Quote from Zeev Suraski (zeev@zend.com)'s article > If you're talking about destruction that honors reference counts (which has > nothing to do with order, it's still randomly-ordered), then yes, it's > *generally* ok. Yes, I was talking about that point. > But that what we had before, and it had tons of > problems. For instance, do you want to give up the ability to access the > symbol table (e.g. $GLOBALS) from destructors? Because the symtable > elements won't have anything to protect them from being deleted, their > refcount is 1. Just in case you're willing to live without it, it did use > to be that way, and people did complain :) Do you mean that global variables have their refcount "locked to 1", or "never less than 1"? For sure if they are "locked to 1", I now understand why destruction of such objects can't reflect "dependences". Stephane