From: Chris Carter <cdcarter@...>
Date: 2007-03-20T11:32:22+09:00
Subject: Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined

On 3/19/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined"
>     on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:16:41 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> writes:
>
> |> > Is that really the intended behaviour ?
> |> Yes.
> |Well ... maybe you can explain a bit more the "why" ...
>
> Because objects with singleton data can not be shared across
> processes.  Objects in marshaled data can live longer than processes.
> In this case, how can we tell the object t work properly without @bla
> variable set?
>
>                                                         matz.
>
>

But what if that singleton class just contained a method that allowed
direct access to a variable, or a quick hack to mutate something,
should those methods make it so it cannot be dumped.  Can't the
interpreter just assume we know what we are doing?

-- 
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com