On 2010-07-04, at 04:09, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Likewise for hashcode: if the object's address is one-way hashed to the
> hashcode() result, but the GC moves the object, then the object will need to
> grow a field to store its invariant hashcode.
FWIW Dylan (and its ancestors) gets around this b
On Jul 4, 2010, at 4:37 AM, Leo Meyerovich wrote:
> Ah, I was confused by the use of bootstrap in "Could we bootstrap Set, Map,
> and WeakMap and call it enough?" ; I thought you meant a user-level encoding
> of these given language-level hashes etc.
The strong maps could be efficiently built i
>>
>> ... then I still don't see how to do an encoding of weak references that
>> isn't invasive (e.g., adding in a user-level GC that constructors are
>> somehow guaranteed to go through). For a non-invasive approach, there might
>> be probablistic guarantees achieved by API restrictions (e.g.
On Jul 4, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Leo Meyerovich wrote:
>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:egal
>
> ... then I still don't see how to do an encoding of weak references that
> isn't invasive (e.g., adding in a user-level GC that constructors are somehow
> guaranteed to go through). Fo
On Jul 4, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Leo Meyerovich wrote:
>
>> Is object identity the inverse of hash?
>
> No, merely the missing-from-the-standard-library egal function that you can
> write yourself. See
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=s
On Jul 3, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Leo Meyerovich wrote:
> Is object identity the inverse of hash?
No, merely the missing-from-the-standard-library egal function that you can
write yourself. See
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:egal
Mark answered on Object.hashcode already. Here's the
... and while it might be unclear from my tone, I've repeatedly hit pain points
weak references, so I'm for an encoding getting in. It's a big deal for proper
frameworks & DSL design.
The dictionary approach was nice in that it supports weak references (a
singleton collection) and provides obje
On Jul 3, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Leo Meyerovich wrote:
> Is object identity the inverse of hash? So myObj == identity(hash(myObj))?
>
> No. There is not and must not be an identity function which turns data into
> access. This would destroy
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Leo Meyerovich wrote:
> Is object identity the inverse of hash? So myObj == identity(hash(myObj))?
>
No. There is not and must not be an identity function which turns data into
access. This would destroy the most important safety property of JavaScript,
that obje
Is object identity the inverse of hash? So myObj == identity(hash(myObj))? Then
weakly keyed or mapped tables are obviously possible, even though they'll have
to be manually cleared of expired values.
Unfortunately, while this may support encoding weak mappings, I suspect a
feature like that is
10 matches
Mail list logo
