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=C...
...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.