# Code Review: RandomRubyFixes01

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129>\
**Category:** IronRuby\
**Created:** [September 21, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129 "2008-09-21T04:14:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/curthibbs)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129/1 "2008-09-21T04:14:23Z")

</div>

tfpt review “/shelveset:RandomRubyFixes01;REDMOND\curth”

Comment :  
Fix many bugs in Marshal; now passes all but 5 tests  
Implement Time.\_load and Time.\_dump to support marshaling of Time  
objects  
Implement “arity” function for method groups  
Correctly scope the constant when looking for the YAML module in  
yaml\_as

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/curthibbs)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129/2 "2008-09-22T00:27:16Z")

</div>

I wonder why you removed spec comments from TimeOps? Not that I object  
that, just curious if our convention is not to include such things into  
the code.  
Also you marked some methods in Marshal as private, while a bunch of  
them still left with no access modifier, I think we should be more  
consistent here and mark everything with explicit access modifiers.

## Otherwise looks great.

Oleg

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/curthibbs)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129/3 "2008-09-22T01:02:23Z")

</div>

Right, our convention is not to copy documentation from ri.  
I agree on access modifiers.

Tomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/curthibbs)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129/4 "2008-09-22T01:04:43Z")

</div>

I thought I had gotten all the access modifiers but I think I got bored  
with adding them and lost focus. 😉 I’ll fix that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@curthibbs](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/curthibbs)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2008, 11:04am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/code-review-randomrubyfixes01/149129/5 "2008-09-22T11:04:11Z")

</div>

Does that mean I should remove the documentation from the Numeric  
classes,  
too? In that code I had put them in as C# xml documentation i.e.  
///

#… kind of stuff. Is this not wanted any more?  
Pete