Weak Reference proposal

[Isiah Meadows]

As an example, if you observe a node with a MutationObserver, but unmount
it and don't retain an explicit reference to it, your mutation observer
will soon stop providing updates, since it only maintains a weak reference
to the node by spec. It can be observed.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 22:09 Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:

> What are the GC semantics specified for DOM? How are these observable?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I know this is only tangentially related, but I just remembered weak refs
>> are required for a fully conforming DOM implementation because of their GC
>> semantics. I feel this is relevant with the semi-recent DOM-in-JS efforts.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 20:24 Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ecma International needs to capture a accurate historical archive  of
>>> the contributions and deliberation that goes into TC39’s design decisions.
>>> The current “policy” of TC39 is that once a proposal reaches Stage 1 is
>>> MUST be hosted on the TC39 github site.  However, when a proposal, like
>>> this one, is actively being developed using contributions (eg, discussion)
>>> by multiple TC39 members it seems like the record of that SHOULD be
>>> included in the Ecma archives.  The best way to ensure that is for such
>>> discussion to be hosted on the TC39 github account, even if the proposal is
>>> only at stage 0.
>>>
>>> Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160217/d6df8f41/attachment.html>