In that case I wouldn't bother, not many people will unload/load Socket
anyway. A better fix would remove that variable from Socket, and move it
to something that is concerned with downloading updates.

Daniel

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> >If you're overwriting the update, then you might as well put the code in
> >Socket class>>initialize, instead of a do it, so that
> >unloading/reloading it will do the right thing.
> >  
> >
> 
> Oops, too late.  I'd rather not overwrite the update again, but we could 
> still add a [FIX] to add that to Socket class>>initialize if that seems 
> like the right thing to do.  (And it seems like the right thing to me.)
> 
> - Doug Way