Difference between Object>>clone and Object>>shallowCopy
John.Maloney at disney.com
John.Maloney at disney.com
Mon Jan 14 19:13:40 UTC 2002
Similar to basicAt:, clone should not be overridden so that you can always
get the primitive clone behavior for any object. ShallowCopy might be overridden,
depending on the semantics of the receiver.
Incidentally, we didn't always have a "clone" primitive. In early versions
of Squeak, shallowCopy was written using "instVarAt:" and "instVarAt:put:".
Re: at: and basicAt:
You're right, the primitive failure code should probably be the same for both.
-- John
At 5:13 PM +0100 1/13/02, ducasse wrote:
>Hi
>
>Is there a difference between Object>>clone and Object>>shallowCopy?
>I'm thinking that there is no difference since they both "invoke" primitive
>148. If there is no difference can somebody tells why do both exist?
>
>Thanks
>
>Stef
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|