Brian Candler wrote in post #1076224:

> It is, but this is a special case.
>
> {"foo" => String, "bar" => Array}
> is serialised as just references to the class named "String" and "Array"
>
> If it worked the way you wanted, then instead of serializing the name it
> would have to serialize everything needed to reconstruct the classes
> "String" and "Array" - including the methods.
>
> So what we gain is the ability to have objects which contain references
> to (named) classes, which is useful, without being able to serialize the
> classes themselves.

 Can you give me a short example?

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