Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > RefPtr does also have regular release() though. I'm not sure if this is for a > practical reason or just no one has fixed it yet. It’s still around until we finish getting rid of PassRefPtr, that’s all. > A wacky

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > >> On Sep 6, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> STL smart pointers have a 0-argument reset for non-returning remove instead, >> and convention seems to be to use swap() or move() for the

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > STL smart pointers have a 0-argument reset for non-returning remove instead, > and convention seems to be to use swap() or move() for the returning remove > on a smart pointer. So an alternate possibility would be to

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

I thought about why release() seems subtly wrong to me for collections, but not for smart pointers. Specifically, release() puts the focus on giving up ownership, but the in the case of a collection, the most important thing is removal from the collection, where giving up ownership is a detail

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

On Tue, 2016-09-06 at 11:12 -0700, Filip Pizlo wrote: > FWIW, I still like release() better than move().  a = move(b) is a > command to the system to move b to a.  So, value = > collection.move(key) feels like a command to the collection to move > key to value, which is clearly not what is going

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

I think “take" is a fine word to indicate that you are taking a value from a HashSet, just like “add" indicates you are adding to the set and remove indicates you are “removing" from the set. It’s true that in all these cases the caller is doing the thing, not the object, but it makes sense in

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: > > “take” grinds my gears too — though I’ve gotten used to it, more or less. > > I read “object.verb()” as a command, “verb”, directed at “object” (or > sometimes as a question, “verb?”, directed at “object”). I think

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

“take” grinds my gears too — though I’ve gotten used to it, more or less. I read “object.verb()” as a command, “verb”, directed at “object” (or sometimes as a question, “verb?”, directed at “object”). I think most APIs are phrased this way. And if I were Antonin Scalia, I would make the

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Daniel Olegovich Lazarenko < dani...@opera.com> wrote: .. > * "take" - a typical name for collections like a blocking queue, heap and > some others (usually ordered). If it's a collection's method, it's > logically expected to return an item. The key distinction

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 10:23 -0700, Filip Pizlo wrote: > The use of "take" for these methods grinds my gears, for the same > reason you were distracted: "take" describes the desires of the > caller, but that doesn't work for me because I read > "fred.makeCoffee()" as "makeCoffee()" being an

Re: [webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

Hello, For a WebKit observer like me: * "release" - has a well-known meaning in Mac/Objective-C world. It's expected to "free" the memory. Same as COM's IUnknown::Release, but different from auto_ptr::release or unique_ptr::release (which don't free the memory). * "move" - has a well-known