On Oct 8, 2:27 pm, buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really need to have a separate copy of an object - they are small
> and it needn't to have heavy computations and consume a lot of memory
I'm sure there are obvious drawbacks (that I can't think of right now)
but what about using json for sto
I really need to have a separate copy of an object - they are small
and it needn't to have heavy computations and consume a lot of memory
On 8 окт, 17:16, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > True use-cases for deep-cloning are actually pretty rare.
>
> I'll second that.
>
> > I'm not s
> True use-cases for deep-cloning are actually pretty rare.
I'll second that.
> I'm not sure what you are attempting to do here, but there's most
> certainly a better way of doing it without needing deep-cloning.
I think I'd go with "probably". :-)
But yeah, buda, you might want to step back a
True use-cases for deep-cloning are actually pretty rare.
When bumping into such an issue, it's usually a good idea to look for
a better coding pattern rather than to add complexity, augment memory
consumption and worsen the performance by bringing out the big guns.
I'm not sure what you are att
Hi,
Object.clone is documented as being a shallow copy:
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/object/clone
"Deep" cloning is more complicated than it seems at first. A naive
version would be along these lines:
Object.extend(Object, {
deepClone: function(source) {
var result;
var p
