Gregory Brown wrote:
> If I wrote that code, I'd assume it was behaving as I intended, and be
> sure to have tests to show it, but truthfully, the code you mentioned
> is better.
> 
> It's valid to consider that if you are dup'ing objects that shouldn't
> be duped 'by accident', then perhaps something has gone wrong in your
> program design.

My issue is that I can't test that. I can only try and catch the 
exception. With dup that's not too terrible as it doesn't have 
side-effects. Still in my oppinion having to run code to see what 
happens is not a clean behaviour.

My regards

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.