From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2004-09-09T00:00:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Marshal and allocating objects

On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:47:48PM +0900, ts wrote:
> >>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:
> 
> P> In order to demonstrate why I do not think const_missing should be
> P> defined for class Object, I intentionally misspelled "SOME_CONSTATN".
> P> Before const_missing was defined I would get an exception here,
> P> whereas after Stephen's version of const_missing is in place, I will
> P> instead get a new class.  Even with well-written unit tests, finding
> P> this misspelling can be a challenge.
> 
>  and ???
> 
>  This does not his problem where `M.allocate' work but not 'Marshal.load()'

Your sentence seems to be missing a necessary verb, so I'm not sure
what you are trying to say.

All I mean to say is that using const_missing to create new classes
on-the-fly is a bad idea, imo.  This is what the original poster was
trying to do.  It does not mean that changing Marhsal.load to have
consistent lookup with the rest of Ruby is a bad idea.

Paul