Is there a reason not to do this?

[Paul McGuire]

"Ron Garret" <rNOSPAMon at flownet.com> wrote in message 
news:rNOSPAMon-C4348B.23494230112006 at news.gha.chartermi.net...
>
> These objects can be parts of huge networks of massively linked data
> structures.  They are in constant flux.  It is not uncommon to hit a bug
> after many minutes, sometimes hours, of computation.  Having to store
> the whole shlemobble after every operation would slow things down by
> orders of magnitude.  And writing code to be clever and only store the
> dirty bits would be a pain in the ass.  I think I'll stick with Plan A.
>
> rg

Sorry, not quite what I meant, I'm not suggesting storing everything after 
every change.  I just meant that to help your development, once you get some 
instances to a steady state, persist them off in some picklish format, so 
you can restart quickly by unpickling, instead of dynamically 
reconstructing.  But you know your problem domain better than I, so I'll 
shut up.  Best of luck to you.

-- Paul