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

RE: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification

From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 23:16:47 +0000
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
CC: Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>, "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>, "es-discuss@mozilla.org" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <90EDC335A511F2479C63F7337D3CE7DB41E0007A@TK5EX14MBXC116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

DataBuffer sounds like another name that is likely to collide with lots of existing use.  If you don' like binary, then another alternative that feels fairly collusion safe is ByteBlob 

Allen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Marrin [mailto:cmarrin@apple.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:57 PM
> To: Allen Wirfs-Brock
> Cc: Alex Russell; arun@mozilla.com; public-script-coord@w3.org; Erik
> Arvidsson; es-discuss@mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification
> 
> 
> On May 14, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> 
> > Name is important.  As a stawman I suggest replacing the name ArrayBuffer
> with BinaryBlob  (Binary is redundant in this context but I'd be worried about
> name conflicts with just Blob).  BinaryBuffer would also work but the word
> buffer may carry implications for some people that do really apply here.
> 
> "Binary" isn't really informative. Perhaps DataBuffer?
> 
> >
> > Allen
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: es-discuss-bounces@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
> >> bounces@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Chris Marrin
> >> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 7:27 AM
> >> To: Alex Russell
> >> Cc: arun@mozilla.com; public-script-coord@w3.org; Erik Arvidsson; es-
> >> discuss@mozilla.org
> >> Subject: Re: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
> 
> -----
> ~Chris
> cmarrin@apple.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 23:17:25 UTC

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