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 <inglor at gmail.com>
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
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150617/8ccfcccb/attachment.html>
d at domenic.me (2015-07-07T01:39:35.147Z)
Could I not use `Object(Symbol.for('some global registry symbol'))` as a
`WeakMap` key? That would return a realm-specific object, of course.
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 <inglor at gmail.com> 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 > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150617/8ccfcccb/attachment.html>