Anonymous user
Talk:Object serialization: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (moved Talk:Object Serialization to Talk:Object serialization) |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
:Try serializing an object graph; the inter-object links would be a reasonable piece of state. Or you could use the labels on the nodes as the state. I'd keep the construction short though; this is a serialization task, not a "build a graph" task after all. —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 05:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
For non-object oriented languages, could we allow an object alternative? The serialization of something of equal complexity to an object, like a closure. I understand it is possible to create a new task, but I would like to avoid the linked list situation. [[User:bengt]] Mon Oct 21 21:37:29 CEST 2013
: If you still feel like doing this, note that even languages which are not themselves "object oriented" can implement something that could be called "objects" and "classes". For example, a C module can be treated as an object with relatively minimal effort (but serializing such a thing would require additional effort of some sort, and might also depend on platform-specific details).
:: Since Erlang has serialization built in, this could be a pretty example. If I have to add objects and classes (not built in) it would hide the interesting bits. The Algol example seems to use records, not objects. If my understanding is correct, than I could base Erlang on that. [[User:bengt]] Tue Oct 22 09:45:55 CEST 2013
| |||