> > The choice of reachabilityFence was in part motivated by hearing > about mistakes in using C# keepAlive where people would place keepAlive > before uses of fields, rather than after them. A more accurate name > should reduce this error in Java.
I don't see how reachabilityFence would help prevent that type of mistake/usage. Having used KeepAlive in .NET, I personally think it's a better and more appropriate name and has the "demarcation" aspect (i.e. "keep this alive until the point where I wrote KeepAlive"). But, it's a bikeshed so I won't get hung up on it. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote: > On 11/24/2015 09:09 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Bikeshedding, >> >> On 11/24/2015 01:07 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: >> >>> How about keepAlive? Reference.keepAlive(Object) reads better, IMO. >>> >> >> It does indeed. Imperative names for methods almost always read better, >> IMO. And although we probably don't don't much care about C#, it too >> uses the name KeepAlive() for this. >> > > Well, it is not an imperative notion, it is a demarcation. > More like a semicolon than an action. (Which is the realm of fences.) > > The choice of reachabilityFence was in part motivated by hearing > about mistakes in using C# keepAlive where people would place keepAlive > before uses of fields, rather than after them. A more accurate name > should reduce this error in Java. > > -Doug > > >
