On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Flanagan <da...@davidflanagan.com>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?
>
+1. I'd be very happy with that.
>
> 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.)
>
A simple but terribly leaky answer:
const LeakyMap() {
const et = EphemeralMap();
const keys = [];
return Object.freeze({
get: et.get,
set: const(key, val) {
keys.push(key);
et.set(key, val);
}
});
}
Non-leaky answer are easy but not pretty.
>
> David
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
