Re: RFC: Remove "destructor" from PEAR class

Hi, Lukas Smith wrote:

as the "destructor". And when the constructor of the child class calls PEAR's constructor, it checks whether the class or any of the *parent* classes have a "destructor". Thus each class that extends PEAR, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT USE THE DESTRUCTOR FEATURE ITSELF, gets registered in PEAR's list of objects, preventing garbage collection. This creates a huge problem for long running scripts.

shouldnt it be possible to just register the object if a destructor method is defined?

The problem is, the destructor method is *always* defined. It is defined in PEAR. That was the point of my entire message.