It would return a different object each time (for the same Symbol, like new String) so it would not exhibit the problem of being observable.
> On Jun 17, 2015, at 20:54, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could I not use `Object(Symbol.for('some global registry symbol'))` as a > `WeakMap` key? That would return a realm-specific object, of course. > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
