On May 15, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
Weakmap are also not enumerable which I believe you need for this sort of set
implementation to work (and to be useful). You need to be able to get items
that have no exterior references out of the set. If you can't you might as
well collect it.
A possible sloppy Set implementation using WeakMap and an auxiliary Array:
function Set() {
this.keys = new WeapMap;
this.entries = [];
}
Set.prototype.add = function (member) {
if (!this.keys.get(member)) {
this.entries.push(member);
this.keys.set(member,this.entries.length-1);
}
}
Set.prototype.remove = function (member) {
let indx = this.keys.get(member);
if (indx) {
delete this.entries[indx];
this.keys.delete(member);
}
}
Set.prototype.add = function (member) {
return this.keys.has(member);
}
Set.prototype.forEach= function (f) {
this.entries.forEach(f);
}
If you are going to have both WeakMap and ObjectMap (ie, NonweakMap) I suspect
that you will have more bugs from people using an ObjectMap when they really
should be using a WeakMap then visa versa. The exceptional case is wanting the
map to be leaky. Rather than having
Map and WeakMap it would probably be better to have Map and StrongMap.
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
