W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification

From: Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:21:16 -0700
Message-Id: <46FFB139-CA45-46FD-9298-6564A28DB82A@dojotoolkit.org>
Cc: Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>, arun@mozilla.com, public-script-coord@w3.org, es-discuss@mozilla.org
To: Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@mozilla.com>
On May 13, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:

> This is difficult to do, given the goals of typed arrays -- they wouldn't behave like normal Arrays in most meaningful ways.

Sounds like a bug to be fixed ;-)

> At the core, an ArrayBuffer is of fixed size, and it doesn't make sense to index an ArrayBuffer directly (because there's no indication of what format the data should be accessed in). Making the array view types instances of Array might work, but again given that they're fixed length, there's a significant difference there. 


That the length property of a particular array subclass leaves the constructor non-configurable and read-only isn't much of a trick in ES5. That said, why *doesn't* TypedArray spec a mutable variant? Surely it'd be useful.

Regards

--
Alex Russell
slightlyoff@google.com
alex@dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 05:21:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC