On 2 Jul 2010, at 23:17, David Flanagan wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
> However, many objected to "ephemeron" as obscure
>> jargon. We have not yet settled the name we are giving this abstraction.
>
> It is the language of GC implementors, and won't make sense to JS programmers.
>
>> I'll be happy with almost any name that everyone else can agree to that
>> isn't technically incorrect, i.e., not "WeakKeyTable".
>> If we can't agree on anything else, I propose that we default to
>> "EphemeronTable". It has the virtues of
>> * being technically correct
>> * giving credit where due
>> * unlikely to conflict with any other names in use by legacy JS code.
>
> How about EphemeralMap?
>
> Changing the obscure noun Ephemeron to an adjective reduces the jargon-level
> substantially, but retains the three virtues Mark lists.
>
> This name make even more sense to JS programmers if Harmony also introduced
> an ordinary Map class for mapping objects to values with regular strong
> references. (I assume there is some way to build an ordinary Map on top of
> an ephemeron table.)
>
> David
Without meaning to tread on anyone's toes here, from my PoV as someone who
doesn't work on any JS engine its the Ephemer{al,on} part that is
confusing/obscure.
Is some variation based around "Weak" not possible?
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
