arnaud Jean Baptiste wrote: > > > I don't suggest to rename #deepCopy, i suggest to replace the behavior > of #deepCopy by #veryDeepCopy behavior. >
>From my observation, the two do not have identical behaviour. In my own case, I need the behaviour of deepCopy to avoid copying a very large object unnecessarily; for now I have a specific method for the object copyWithoutCircularity. There are 44 senders of deepCopy, which would need testing. Another solution is to rewrite deepCopy like veryDeepCopy, to have a copier object. This needs another method on Object, deepCopyWith: I'm happy to implement a solution, given a consensus on the best way to do this. I have created a general test case for this situation, attached to issue 521 http://pharo.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=7298911011553982520&name=CircularInstVarTest.st ...Stan -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Question-about-deepCopy-tp3859147p3923585.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
