> On Dec 19, 2018, at 9:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <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
>> > <free online bettingmailto: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.
>> 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?
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
Also, I had never heard of interned strings before.
webkit-dev mailing list