We need to name "EphemeronTable" (was: Do we need an experimental extension naming convention?)

[Brendan Eich]

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 on this issue. If someone else would like to, so long as they keep it bloody simple (i.e., not like Java, Smalltalk, or STL), that'd be great. Even the E collections <http://erights.org/elang/collect/tables.html> <http://erights.org/javadoc/org/erights/e/elib/tables/EMap.html>, where I could make them as simple as I wished, got way too complicated -- more complicated than I would find acceptable.
> 
> Great designers of extraordinarily simple expressive APIs, please step forward!

Ideally TC39 should not standardize or design anything not already proven and popular (if not dominant) in the field. The problem is no one can make practicaly O(1) collections without Object.hashcode and Object.identity.

Say we add hashcode and identity. Then we'll have to wait a while, Could we bootstrap Set, Map, and WeakMap and call it enough? I think so.

"Dense List" could be added but implementations are optimizing for dense arrays already. I think this one is too close to Array to be worth it, but without a detailed design that's just my gut reaction. FWIW.

/be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20100702/bb7ecd90/attachment-0001.html>