On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Ash Berlin <ash...@firemirror.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
How about
ATableThatDoesWhatManyPeopleThinkWeakKeyTablesDo
;).
More seriously, without prior knowledge of either weak pointers or
ephemerons, "ephemeral" seems more self explanatory than "weak".
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
