free login cricket bookies tips_Welfare offer best american football websites_betway apk download latest version

free online bettingThu, 20 Dec 2018 11:27:07 -0800

>>> 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.)

By definition, any string that has been uniqued is unique.

So, maybe we like ¡°unique¡± or maybe we don¡¯t. But if we like ¡°unique¡±, it¡¯s 
strictly better than ¡°uniqued¡±.

>> 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.

AtomicString has two features:

(1) You do comparison by pointer / object identity;

(2) You never allocate two objects for the same sequence of characters.

JavaScript symbols offer (1) but avoid (2):

        let a = Symbol(¡°The string of the past!¡±);
        let b = Symbol(¡°The string of the past!¡±);
        a == b; // false
        a === b; // false

Today we call (1) ¡°UniquedStringImpl¡± and (1) + (2) ¡°AtomicStringImpl¡±.

If we rename (1) + (2) to ¡°UniqueString¡± or ¡°UniquedString¡±, we need a new name 
for (1) alone.

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to