On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 14, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > >> I suspect i did suggest WeakMap but I think I misunderstood the proposal. I >> felt the goal was to prevent the key from being kept around forever even >> when the value was gone, I did not expect the key to keep the value alive. >> >> --Oliver >> > > I think I've suggest in the past that what we are currently calling "WeakMap" > should just be called "ObjectMap" or something like that. I can't think of > any use case where object identify is used as a map key and you don't want > the "WeakMap" semantics. Essentially "WeakMap" just means > "NonLeakyObjectMap".
It's pretty easy to implement a Set datastructure on top of a Map, and if your set's equality is ===, then you'd want a strong object-identity-keyed map. WeakMap semantics would clearly be wrong here. Of course, to do this using ES.next WeakMaps would be annoying, because *only* objects can be used as keys, but that's not really relevant to the strong/weak distinction. -- sam th [email protected] _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
