On 21 Jan., 22:27, Matt Jones <al2o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Nick Sutterer wrote:
>
> > By accident I solved this with a 10-liner months ago, why not use
> > something like
> > that?https://github.com/apotonick/hooks/blob/master/lib/hooks/inheritable_...
>
> > It's simple, clean and does exactly what you expect.
>
> Well, as long as "what you expect" doesn't involve keeping anything more
> complicated than a flat Hash/Array/etc in the class variable:
>
Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch - that's absolutely right. So worst case is
that in my solution you might still operate on a superclass object.
Let me think about that!
> irb --> a = { :key_1 => 1, :key_2 => ['x','y'] }
> ==> {:key_1=>1, :key_2=>["x", "y"]}
>
> irb --> b = a.clone
> ==> {:key_1=>1, :key_2=>["x", "y"]}
>
> irb --> b[:key_2] << 'z'
> ==> ["x", "y", "z"]
>
> irb --> a
> ==> {:key_1=>1, :key_2=>["x", "y", "z"]}
>
> Object#clone solves the problems caused when you add a key to hash b in this
> example, but it doesn't completely separate the objects. This code does:
>
> totally_cloned = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(source))
>
> but that's fairly inefficient and fails disastrously if an object that can't
> be marshalled is involved (Procs, for instance).
>
> I can't really decide whether doing the clone causes results that are more or
> less surprising than the existing version.
>
> --Matt Jones
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
