> On Dec 19, 2018, at 9:41 PM, Chris Dumez <cdu...@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 9:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com 
>> <mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org 
>>> <mailto:rn...@webkit.org>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:13 PM Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com 
>>> <mailto:simon.fra...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> > On Dec 19, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@igalia.com 
>>> > <mailto:mcatanz...@igalia.com>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com 
>>> > <mailto:da...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> >> I’ve gotten used to the name AtomicString over the years, but I wouldn’t 
>>> >> strongly object to changing it if other programmers are often confused 
>>> >> by it’s similarity to the term “atomic operations”.
>>> > 
>>> > Well there were two other developers in the thread Ryosuke linked to who 
>>> > made the exact same mistake as me, so I do think the current name is 
>>> > problematic. A change wouldn't need to be drastic, though. I think 
>>> > suggestions from the old thread like "StringAtom" or "AtomString" would 
>>> > be unproblematic. The problem is the specific word "atomic" carries an 
>>> > expectation that the object be safe to access concurrently across threads 
>>> > without locks; I think that expectation doesn't exist if not for the "ic" 
>>> > at the end.
>>> > 
>>> > FWIW I've only ever heard the "interned string" terminology prior to now.
>>> SingletonString?
>>> UniquedString?
>>> I do like UniquedString. That conveys what AtomicString really is. 
>>> SingletonString isn't so great since AtomicString table is still per thread.
>> So hard to pronounce though! Why not UniqueString? It’s not quite as 
>> explicit but close enough. 
> Wouldn’t it be confusing to use UniqueString type for a string that is 
> *common* in order to save memory?

I would interpret it as UniqueString(foo) means “give me the unique copy of 
string foo”. You use a unique copy so you can use the same string in many 
places without wasting memory, or excess time on string compares. It’s used in 
many places, but there is only one. (Maybe we should call it HighlanderString? 
OK, not serious.)

> Personally, I like the AtomString proposal as it is close to the naming we 
> are used to and addresses the issue raised (atomic has a different meaning 
> with threading).
> Also, I had never heard of interned strings before.

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to