On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Guillermo Polito
<guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Martin Dias <tinchod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Phil:
>> I'm sorry, didn't get what you point with the code snippet. The copy of
>> the Symbol is the same instance, that I think it's nto GCed.
>>
>> Guille:
>> Yes, I knew the internals of the WeakValueDictionary but asked about the
>> API.
>
>
> Ah, ok, I only understood that you did not get why it was like that. :)
>
>>
>> What I don't know is about using WeakRegistry
>
>
> This is just needed to do the cleanup of the expired associations.
>
>>
>> and Ephemerons.
>
>
> This is a completely different thing. There is an EphemeronRegistry in the
> image, but it does not propose at:/at:ifAbsent: messages. It just holds
> Ephemerons.
>
>> I'll check WeakKeyDictionary.
>
>
> If you need to hold weakly the values, then this is not what you're looking
> for, isn't it?
>
>>
>>
>> I understand the idea of "explicit control of magic", but not sure if I
>> understand concretely. Do you mean to implement something like
>> WeakValueDictionary>>register which will not be executed by #initialize, so
>> the user can decide to register. Am I right?
>
>
> Yep. I would even call it:
>
> registerForCleanup
>
> Like that it is explicit that you're doing it, and that it may incur into
> some performance degradation of the entire system.
>
>>
>>
>> Denis:
>> +1 WeakSet behavior is really confusing! In thte case of
>> WeakValueDictionary I didn't check for inconsistencies but was only annoyed
>> but it's behavior.
>>
>> Guille and Denis:
>> Instead of using SetElement or cleaning up the empty
>> WeakValueAssociations, what I first thought is to internally consider an
>> association with nil as absent. I mean, modify or override some methods soem
>> when there is an WeakValueAssociation with value == nil it considers it's
>> absent. Concretely, I'd expect:
>
>
> Well, the idea of the SetElement is that you may want to have `nil` as a
> valid value in your dictionary. Otherwise, you cannot do:
>
> WeakValueDictionary new
> at: 'key' put: nil;
> at: 'key' --> error???
>
> We can discuss if it is useful or not, but as with sets, before people used
> to check if the inserted element was nil beforehand to have the expected
> behavior...
>
>>
>> | dictionary |
>> dictionary := WeakValueDictionary with: 'hello' -> 'world' copy.
>> Smalltalk garbageCollect.
>> {
>> dictionary values includes: nil. ---> false
>> dictionary at: 'hello'. ---> NotFound signal
>> dictionary at: 'hello' ifAbsent: [ 'absent' ]. ---> 'absent'
>> dictionary at: 'hello' ifAbsentPut: [ 'put' ]. ---> 'put'
>> }
>
>
> I agree that we may review the API. At least #at:, #at:ifAbsent: and
> #at:ifAbsentPut: should behave similarly.
>
> In any case, we could see how to improve EphemeronRegistry or even implement
> an EphemericDictionary that would replace the WeakValueDictionary.
btw, Would EmphemeralDictionary be an acceptable name? It has a nicer
sound to it.
cheers -ben
>
>>
>>
>> It's better if I give some context. Look this simplified version of my use
>> case:
>>
>> MyUI>>
>> morphAt: key
>> cache ifNil: [ cache := WeakValueDictionary new ].
>> ^ cache at: key ifPresent: [:cachedValueOrNil | cachedValueOrNil
>> ifNotNil: [ cachedValueOrNil ] ifNil: [ cache at: entryReference put: (self
>> newMorph: key) ] ] ifAbsent: [ cache at: entryReference put: (self newMorph:
>> key) ]
>>
>> I'd like to only send #newMorph: in ifAbsent: and to avoid the
>> ifNotNil:ifNil:
>> Like this:
>>
>> morphAt: key
>> cache ifNil: [ cache := WeakValueDictionary new ].
>> ^ cache at: key ifAbsent: [ cache at: entryReference put: (self newMorph:
>> key) ]
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> MartÃn
>
>
