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

[Erik Arvidsson]

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 <mjs at apple.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure if there is currently a plan to add a vanilla Map. Some have
> suggested that Object.hash is enough, and JS libraries could build on top of
> the primitive. I think it would seem strange to add ephemeron tables without
> a regular map data structure too, even if in theory you could build your
> own. It seems to me that the standard library of a modern language should
> include a reasonable group of fundamental data structures. I would also
> argue for adding a hashtable-based Set, but I will concede that is less
> essential.
>

Yes, I don't think adding Ephemer{on,al}Map without a standard Map is
acceptable. I'm also in favor of Set.

I also don't think we should skip Map and Set in favor of Object.hash since
it would mean all libraries would have to ship down code to do maps and sets
and it would also mean that different libraries would have a harder time to
work together due to different Map and Set APIs.

-- 
erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20100702/58482730/attachment-0001.html>