On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:54 AM, David Bruant <david.bru...@labri.fr> wrote:
> Le 06/06/2011 18:30, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Bruant <david.bru...@labri.fr>wrote:
>
>> Le 06/06/2011 17:41, Mike Samuel a écrit :
>> > 2011/6/6 David Bruant <david.bru...@labri.fr>:
>> >> The consequence of this second point is wondering whether it's a good
>> idea
>> >> to standardize WeakMap (instead of Map) at all.
>> > Besides a lack of out-of-memory errors and performance, a program
>> > using an object key map that doesn't use ephemeron pairs shouldn't
>> > behave differently than one that does. But developers need to have
>> > some idea of memory performance when choosing an appropriate
>> > collection. If you're documenting, I would document the behavior
>> > around GC upon which devs can rely.
>> Not only there is a memory performance difference, but also a key
>> enumerability difference. With WeakMaps, keys cannot be enumerated in a
>> determinist manner while they can with Map.
>>
>
>
> This enumerability is crucial to the difference in how conservative an
> approximation to "will not be used" needs to be to be safe. If we got rid of
> WeakMap and only had enumerable Map, the GC would need to determine that a
> given map would never be enumerated in order to gc it as aggressively. Put
> another way, resource issues aside, WeakMap's contract is merely the
> non-enumerable subset of Map's contract. The GC knows that a WeakMap won't
> be enumerated because it can't be.
>
> So maybe that the harmony:simple_maps_and_sets proposal should do the
> "todo" and add the iteration (or an enumeration) method.
>
That's the plan.
> Otherwise, the Map proposal has no more value than the WeakMap proposal ;-)
>
Correct.
>
> David
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
