o = Object.new
o.freeze

o.clone.frozen?
#=> true

o.dup.frozen?
#=> false

克隆还将复制对象的单例方法,而dup不会：

o = Object.new
def o.foo
  42
end

o.clone.respond_to?(:foo)
#=> true

o.dup.respond_to?(:foo)
#=> false

这导致我认为克隆有时被理解为提供比dup更“复杂”的假设.这里有一些关于这个主题的引语：

Comment on ActiveRecord::Base#initialize_dup from Rails 3：

Duped objects have no id assigned and are treated as new records. Note
that this is a “shallow” copy as it copies the object’s attributes
only,not its associations. The extent of a “deep” copy is application
specific and is therefore left to the application to implement according
to its need.

An article about deep copies in Ruby：

There is another method worth mentioning,clone. The clone method does the same thing as dup with one important distinction: it’s expected that objects will override this method with one that can do deep copies.

But then again,theres deep_dup in Rails 4：

Returns a deep copy of object if it’s duplicable. If it’s not duplicable,returns self.

and also ActiveRecord::Core#dup and #clone in Rails 4：

clone — Identical to Ruby’s clone method. This is a “shallow” copy. Be warned that your attributes are not copied. […] If you need a copy of your attributes hash,please use the #dup method.

这意味着在这里,dup这个词再次被用来指代一个深的克隆.据我所知,在社区中似乎没有共识,只要您需要使用clone和dup,当您需要任何一个特定的副作用时.

最后,我在Ruby代码中看到dup比克隆更多.到目前为止,我从来没有使用过克隆,直到明确需要我才会使用克隆.