> On Dec 19, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:13 PM Simon Fraser <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Michael Catanzaro <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Darin Adler <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> I’ve gotten used to the name AtomicString over the years, but I wouldn’t > >> strongly object to changing it if other programmers are often confused by > >> it’s similarity to the term “atomic operations”. > > > > Well there were two other developers in the thread Ryosuke linked to who > > made the exact same mistake as me, so I do think the current name is > > problematic. A change wouldn't need to be drastic, though. I think > > suggestions from the old thread like "StringAtom" or "AtomString" would be > > unproblematic. The problem is the specific word "atomic" carries an > > expectation that the object be safe to access concurrently across threads > > without locks; I think that expectation doesn't exist if not for the "ic" > > at the end. > > > > FWIW I've only ever heard the "interned string" terminology prior to now. > > SingletonString? > UniquedString? > > I do like UniquedString. That conveys what AtomicString really is. > SingletonString isn't so great since AtomicString table is still per thread.
So hard to pronounce though! Why not UniqueString? It’s not quite as explicit but close enough. Cheers, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
