On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:20:34 -0400 (EDT), Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Clites wrote:
> > 2) I don't see it as a huge problem that serialization code could end
> > up creating additional objects if called from a destroy() method.
>
> User code may, parrot may not. The reasons are twofold--while parrot will
> let you shoot yourself in the foot, it provides the gun, not the foot.
> It should also be possible for carefully written destroy methods to
> serialize but not eat any headers or memory. (I can see this being the
> case in some embedded applications or systems) If we make it so freezing
> is not a guaranteed possibility at destroy time then this can't happen and
> it lessens the utility of the system some.
>
> We can, if we choose, loosen the restriction later if sufficient reason is
> presented. Can't really tighten it, though, so for now...
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"But do not program in COBOL if you can avoid it."
-- "The Tao of Programming"
