> congratulations and THANK YOU! I learned something important reading your > messages. The notion that we can preserve non-observability when making one > thing a WeakMap iff we make all other WeakMaps be strong for those same > objects is true, novel, and very surprising. I have been working on such > concepts for decades and never come across anything like it.
I apologize, I understand the problem with a weak registry forcing observable garbage collection in user code - that's nice but isn't this always the case with references to objects when an object pool/flyweight is used? Isn't this the same issue as `==` working on strings that have string objects interned but possibly GC'd (and precisely why Java never collects interned strings)? _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
