Question about deepCopy,

> I'm going to briefly be a wise-guy to a (well intentioned) purpose.  
> You appear to be suggesting that we call #deepCopy something else,  
> and then fix it.
>
> One might drag the fix into #deepCopy??  But years ago now,  
> #deepCopy fell from grace, perhaps for good reason.  What I recall  
> seeing in its place was #postCopy that can be overriden to ensure a  
> distinct copy; that seemed to be in contrast to #shallowCopy.
>
> This deserves some attention to ensure that we do the correct thing.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:pharo-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of arnaud Jean  
> Baptiste
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:07 AM
> To: Pharo Development
> Subject: [Pharo-project] Question about deepCopy,
>
>
> question:
>
> deepCopy have this behavior :
> - copy self.
> - then send deepCopy on all instance var.
>
> this behavior, make infinite loop when  a object have instance  
> variable which reference to himself or more longer cycle.
>
> Why don't replace deepCopy by veryDeepCopy, same behavior but copy  
> each object only once (create collection and keep reference).
> performance issue ?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>
> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project