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

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Fri Jul 2 19:47:33 PDT 2010

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.

Cool. I'm warming to WeakMap as well. Do we have any objections to 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/20100702/97801733/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list