I think we should plan for success a bit more than in the past. The CSS vendor
prefixes were supposed to be short-term, but some have persisted without
de-jure standardization, IIRC, for years. That's the downside we can avoid
cleanly by naming per draft spec.
Also, we are not decided yet that
Shades of the first browser wars. This is sometimes the right thing but too
much and we get tower-of-Babel confusion and extensions that don't go away.
We're not extending SpiderMonkey in Firefox with things not proposed or already
in the harmony: namespace. We are also not yet agreed on
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
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
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Flanagan da...@davidflanagan.comwrote:
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
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
On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 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
I'm opposed to anything that contains ephemer* in the name. Most JS
developers do not know what this means.
Both WeakMap and CacheMap seems acceptable with a slight favor for WeakMap.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 16:40, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'm not sure if there is currently a
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I agree that EphemeronTable is too jargon-ish and may dissuade developers
from using it. I like Map better than Table as a suffix. Ephemeral is an
improvement, but it
Cool. I'm warming to WeakMap as well. Do we have any objections to WeakMap?
+1
I 3 WeakMap.
Dave
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I'm also in favour of a regular Map and Set. Also a dense List (i.e., what we
might have otherwise called an Array :(.) However, the history of oo class
libraries shows collection libraries to be a tarpit, so I'm unwilling to take
the lead
11 matches
Mail list logo
