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

Re: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 07:27:07 -0700
Cc: Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@mozilla.com>, arun@mozilla.com, es-discuss@mozilla.org, public-script-coord@w3.org, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>
Message-id: <CF90B722-73B2-4C23-B661-037789A1B9A3@apple.com>
To: Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>

On May 13, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Alex Russell wrote:

> 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.

One of the important aspects of ArrayBuffer is its fixed length. As I mentioned before, perhaps the issue here is the poor naming (using "Array" in the names of objects that don't behave in the same way as the ES Array object). The names can be changed but I think we need the concept of a fixed length buffer with fixed views into it.
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 14:27:40 UTC

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