indeed this is strange. I would be nice to have some tests to cover the existing situations.
Stef On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Stan Shepherd wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
