Wrong parent in RBProgramNode after a #copy

> Hi,
>
> while writing some code transformation code, I found out
> that in many implementations of RBProgramNode & co. the #copy
> message makes a sort of deep copy, copying also it's child nodes.
>
> However, it does NOT sets it's parent to the copy, so for copied
> nodes, following does not hold:
>
>    someNode children anyOne parent == someNode
>
> This seems to br wrong to me. In other implementations I can
> simply use #deepCopy and works fine, but I cannot do this in
> Pharo because #deepCopy fails. The reason is that in Pharo
> RBProgramNodes are infested with OpalCompiler stuff which
> apparently keeps BlockClosures which cannot be deep-copied.
> The tree I'm trying to copy is obtained using
> BlockClosure>>sourceNode.
>
> Question: Is there a way how to copy the parse tree with parents
> set properly?
>
> If not, I'm inclined to fix #copy so it sets parent node properly
> If that's not desirable for one reason or another, no problem, I'll
> do it differently (but not-so-nicely :-)
>
> Best, Jan
>
>
>
>
>

> Hi jan
>
> to me it looks like a bug.
>
> Stef
>
>
> Le 18/6/15 08:04, Jan Vrany a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > while writing some code transformation code, I found out
> > that in many implementations of RBProgramNode & co. the #copy
> > message makes a sort of deep copy, copying also it's child nodes.
> >
> > However, it does NOT sets it's parent to the copy, so for copied
> > nodes, following does not hold:
> >
> >    someNode children anyOne parent == someNode
> >
> > This seems to br wrong to me. In other implementations I can
> > simply use #deepCopy and works fine, but I cannot do this in
> > Pharo because #deepCopy fails. The reason is that in Pharo
> > RBProgramNodes are infested with OpalCompiler stuff which
> > apparently keeps BlockClosures which cannot be deep-copied.
> > The tree I'm trying to copy is obtained using
> > BlockClosure>>sourceNode.
> >
> > Question: Is there a way how to copy the parse tree with parents
> > set properly?
> >
> > If not, I'm inclined to fix #copy so it sets parent node properly
> > If that's not desirable for one reason or another, no problem, I'll
> > do it differently (but not-so-nicely :-)
> >
> > Best, Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>