- From: Ash Berlin <ash_js@firemirror.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:33:46 +0000
- To: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C991D357-4EC9-4A84-A16C-EBB0D2C586C4@firemirror.com>
On 6 Nov 2009, at 19:24, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Dean Landolt wrote: > >> Just in case some of you weren't aware, the CommonJS group has done >> quite a bit of work and (bikeshedding) on this topic. Here's a link >> to the wiki: >> >> http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/Binary >> >> If nothing else there's quite a bit of prior art collected which >> should inform the conversation. I know the Binary/B proposal has >> the implementation momentum, but I don't know exactly what the >> status is. I haven't been closely following the evolution of these >> binary specs too closely but since it seems that nearly everyone >> else from the group is off to jsconf.eu I figured I ought to toss >> this out there. > > Thanks, I had forgotten about commonjs.org, having once paid better > attention. > > Kris did a good job with Binary/B (although I do not see the point > of the .get method additions) -- I didn't look at the other > proposals yet. > > /be Binary/B feels largely right, but it has a few too many methods from Array simply because Array had them for my taste, specifically things like sort, reduce, shift, unshift etc. Conceptually: why would you want to sort an array of bytes? There are certainly classes of operations that I think should just be done via b.toArray().X rather than directly on the blob. As a community (CommonJS) we'd be more than happy to go forward with a binary spec that came from (or at least has the blessing of) the ES groups -ash
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 05:20:09 UTC