On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Kyle Simpson <get...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I was a programmer >> looking for something like weak referencing in JS for the first time, >> "weak" is what I'd be searching for. >> > > But if you're actually aware of weakrefs (as I am), and you're searching > for them in JS (as I was), and you see "WeakMap" (as I did), and you make > the conclusion that "Weak" in the name means in fact weak references (as I > did), then you probably also (as I did) assume that *all* the refs are weak. > That's a failed conclusion, because only the keyrefs are weak. > I can second this _exact_ experience. > > The name doesn't do anything to enlighten you that it only offers weak > keyrefs and not weak valuerefs -- in fact, by your "discovery" line of > reasoning, the name is almost a landmine that traps/misleads someone who > does in fact know about weakrefs -- someone who didn't know about weakrefs > wouldn't necessarily make the same deductive assumption by seeing "weak" in > the name. > > Misleading/confusing with an API name is, IMHO, worse than less > implementation-self-**descriptive naming. > > --Kyle > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
