On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:37 AM, ZyX <zyx....@gmail.com> wrote: > Consider the following code: > let l=[[[]]] > lockvar! l > call add(l[0][0], l) " Results in E741: Value is locked > let l2=deepcopy(l) > call add(l2[0][0], l) " Succeeds > Here you can see that deepcopy has purged all locks, but I do not see this > behavior documented in :h deepcopy(), though it is somewhat mentioned in > :h :lockvar: > You may want to make a copy of a list to avoid this. > See |deepcopy()|. >
Before i check the specific problem pointed by link below, as regards to your question about the deepcopy, i don't think there is any problem, it just do the right thing. Maybe the document about deepcopy does not mention about the effect to "lockvar", but the result stands to reason. You can refer to the document about deepcopy. ===> When an item is a |List|, a copy for it is made, *recursively*. Thus changing an item in the copy does not change the contents of the *original *|List| <=== Yes, instead of "purging" all the locks, actually, the "deepcopy" function make a new instance of the object pointed by "l". And now, "l2" and "l" is pointing to the *different *object that has the *same value*. You lock the object pointed by "l", but not the object pointed by "l2". So, you can modify l2 without any locks warning, but if you want to modify "l", the warning will come out again. > > Can I rely on this behavior? I want to implement something like an > AlreadyChecked function from the first (and the only) answer to this > question: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3071476/checking-whether-some-object-has- > been-already-tested<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3071476/checking-whether-some-object-has-%0Abeen-already-tested> > -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
