I meant to say, maybe deepCopy should just be deprecated?
Stan Shepherd wrote: > > > 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-tp3859147p3923589.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
