<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<font size="4"><font face="monospace">Yes, really this is shorthand
for allocating a local _slot_. And this really is allocation --
its a slab allocator with stack-based allocation/deallocation of
sub-slabs. <br>
<br>
Names like "newLocal" don't really capture what's going on,
because we're not, for example, making a data structure that
represents a local, we're reserving a slot for it. <br>
<br>
I had considered "allocateSlot" which is more accurate but I
thought "slot" by itself might be obvious. Other options
include:<br>
<br>
allocateLocalSlot<br>
reserveLocal<br>
reserveLocalSlot<br>
more?<br>
</font></font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/31/2023 7:54 AM, Maurizio
Cimadamore wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:6c9e4dae-6403-9d00-c91b-ce7b00eff6f3@oracle.com">Hi,
<br>
while reviewing this:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13247">https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13247</a>
<br>
<br>
I couldn't help but getting rubbed the wrong way seeing "allocate"
next to "Local". I realize this might be a subjective bias (I've
been staring at memory allocators for too long :-) ), but I don't
think that the concept of "allocation" belongs to local variables?
I think a more neutral "newLocal", "makeLocal", "createLocal"
might work better in this regard.
<br>
<br>
Cheers
<br>
Maurizio
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>