ok, majority seems to be in favour of AddImplicitReferences. Misha, thanks a lot for your suggestion anyway.
yours, anton. On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Mads Sig Ager <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I would prefer Vitaly's AddImplicitReferences. That is also the > exact words used in the description of the API. > Just my two cents. :-) > -- Mads > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Mikhail Naganov <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> How about `AddImplicitRelation' or `AddImplicitConnection' ? As >> connections can be one-to-many it's OK to use a singular form. >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 23:05, Anton Muhin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Vitaly Repeshko <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Anton Muhin <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> I am not sure it's that different---the whole group of objects >> >>> survives if some condition is held. For object groups: any object is >> >>> alive, for implicit references---designated object is alive. For me >> >>> they are similar enough. YMMV of course. >> >> >> >> You see? You don't use the word "group" yourself in the second case :) >> >> I'm for preventing any confusion that an embedder might have here. >> > >> > That was just an omission---I like shorter sentences :) >> > >> > In any event, I already told that I am fine with switch to references. >> > I just hope there might be better variants. >> > >> > yours, >> > anton. >> > > > -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
