- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:33:05 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 --- Comment #7 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> --- > But this would unnecessarily preclude ES6 subclasses of any of those named > typed array constructors. That depends on how this stuff is defined. If it's defined to check branding bits, ES6 subclasses should Just Work, I would think. > The replacement for ArrayBufferView is the function ArrayBuffer.isView(obj) Right. My proposal is that we have a WebIDL way to say "accept any object for which ArrayBuffer.isView() would return true". Then we just need a name for that concept. > If an API is going to accept both views and ArrayBuffers it needs to be able to > map a view to the appropriate subsequence of its buffer. Yes. The point of accepting views is to only use the byes mapped by the view, not the entire backing store. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 18:33:07 UTC