I suspect i did suggest WeakMap but I think I misunderstood the proposal. I felt the goal was to prevent the key from being kept around forever even when the value was gone, I did not expect the key to keep the value alive.
--Oliver On May 14, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 14, 2011, at 4:03 PM, David Bruant wrote: > > > Le 15/05/2011 01:01, Oliver Hunt a écrit : > >> No, I am wrong, if i have a key that i can ever reuse, the map is strong, > >> because the key will keep the value live. These aren't weak maps, they > >> are strong maps that don't leak keys that have become dead. > >> > >> I can kind of see the value of this kind of structure, but I don't believe > >> it is a WeakMap. > > What is your definition of a WeakMap? > > How is the current strawman different from this definition? > > In the definition of a weak map that I have always known, the key does not > keep the mapped value alive. In the weakmaps proposal the key keeps the > mapped value alive. > > Like > <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:weak_references#a_weakvaluetable>? > > Is there some prior system that refers to these as WeakMaps? > > > > So if you can ever lookup a key again, the value cannot be collected, so your > "cache" will hold onto every entry forever. > > > David > --Oliver > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
