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

Re: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification

From: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 17:10:04 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDR75R3nUUrBe5dEBQCi52fQtp1xaGUgAEwPxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
Cc: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>, "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, "es-discuss@mozilla.org" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com> 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.

Out of curiosity what are the implications of the word "buffer"?

Out of the naming suggestions proposed here I still prefer
"ArrayBuffer". It meshes with the name of the spec -- TypedArrays --
and indicates that it's the buffer which backs the various views.

-Ken

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 00:10:38 UTC

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