From: Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>
Date: 2007-03-20T17:27:59+09:00
Subject: Re: [ ruby-Bugs-9376 ] Marshal.dump shouldn't complain about singletons if the _dump method is defined

> |> I am not sure if we know what we are doing here.  Dumping objects
> |> without singleton information may trigger serious problems, that can
> |> happen too easily.
> |I don't see why as soon as the dumping/loading is done by user code. I
> |defined _dump, if the singleton state is important, it is my job to
> | save it anyway. So ...
> In most of my use case, singleton behavior/attribute is fundamental to
> the object.  For example, ARGF is an instance of plain Object, even if
> it works like an IO.  I don't want get an empty object when I dumped
> ARGF.  I'd rather get an error.
_dump is not explicitely defined on ARGF. I don't have any problem with 
Ruby not dumping it in that case. My problem is that if _dump is defined, 
it is because the object dumping procedure is custom anyway. If there is 
singleton state to save, it is the programmer responsibility, not Ruby's.

> |> You can define its own marshal_dump method if you really want to dump
> |> the object.
> |No you can't, or I wrongly guessed how marshal_dump should be defined
> |(marshal_dump and _dump are really not documented enough)
> My mistake.  Now I think it should behave so.  Will fix.
While you're at it, could you explain the difference between _dump and 
marshal_dump ? I googled a bit and found nothing ...

Thanks a lot
Sylvain