Forum: Ruby Frozen OpenStruct allows modification

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
bhz (Guest)
on 2009-02-14 14:35
(Received via mailing list)
Why does OpenStruct allow modification after it has been frozen? Output
is
20 in both ruby 1.8.6 and 1.9:

require 'ostruct'

a = OpenStruct.new()
a.foo = 10
a.freeze()
a.foo = 20
puts a.foo
Stefan L. (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 01:22
(Received via mailing list)
2009/2/14 bhz <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
> Why does OpenStruct allow modification after it has been frozen? Output is
> 20 in both ruby 1.8.6 and 1.9:
>
> require 'ostruct'
>
> a = OpenStruct.new()
> a.foo = 10
> a.freeze()
> a.foo = 20
> puts a.foo

Because the OpenStruct instance is never modified here,
only the internal hash it uses to store attribute values.
The internal hash is not frozen, only the OpenStruct instance
itself.

Stefan
Robert K. (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 02:01
(Received via mailing list)
On 15.02.2009 00:18, Stefan L. wrote:
>> puts a.foo
>
> Because the OpenStruct instance is never modified here,
> only the internal hash it uses to store attribute values.
> The internal hash is not frozen, only the OpenStruct instance
> itself.

That could still be considered a bug and IMHO it is.

Kind regards

  robert
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 02:02
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Stefan L.
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Because the OpenStruct instance is never modified here,
> only the internal hash it uses to store attribute values.
> The internal hash is not frozen, only the OpenStruct instance
Sounds like a bug to me.
Robert
bhz (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 11:45
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:59:20 +0100, Robert K. wrote:

>>> a.foo = 20
>
>   robert

Agreed.
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 12:40
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM, bhz <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
I have submitted a patch to ruby-core.

Turned out that this was certainly an error only *already* created
write accessors were ignoring the frozen? state of the object, thus

x =OpenStruct::new.freeze
x.a = 42

would have thrown the expected TypeError.

Cheers
Robert
Robert K. (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 19:10
(Received via mailing list)
On 15.02.2009 11:38, Robert D. wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM, bhz <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> I have submitted a patch to ruby-core.

Well done!

> Turned out that this was certainly an error only *already* created
> write accessors were ignoring the frozen? state of the object, thus
>
> x =OpenStruct::new.freeze
> x.a = 42
>
> would have thrown the expected TypeError.

Thanks for the update and the insights!

Kind regards

  robert
bhz (Guest)
on 2009-02-17 10:35
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:38:10 -0500, Robert D. wrote:

>
> Cheers
> Robert

Thanks for input. So we can expect it to be fixed in the new release?
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2009-02-17 13:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:34 AM, bhz <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
>>
>> would have thrown the expected TypeError.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Robert
>
> Thanks for input. So we can expect it to be fixed in the new release?
>
>
I really do not know, depends if my patch or Joel's will be accepted,
but I see no reason why not ;).
R.
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2009-03-02 13:58
(Received via mailing list)
They fixed it :)
R
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.