On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:13 AM, K. Gadd <kg@luminance.org> wrote: > Arguably no matter the terminology, start/offset are unclear when you have > both a source and a destination. IMO either prefix the offset argument > (sourceOffset, etc) or allow offsets to be specified for source and > destination. Passing both source and destination offsets would make these > APIs a lot more useful since they allow you to carve slices out of a much > larger buffer, and there's already the length argument. If you just want > people to use typed array views for that, probably take out the length > argument and just use the length of the source array. > For most uses I could think of, starting at offset 0 of the array was fine. How would an offset into the array make this much more useful? Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 15:56:58 UTC