- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 17:13:42 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 --- Comment #47 from Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> --- That plan also sounds good to me. You'll need some very strong language so that spec editors don't overuse "get a reference to the bytes held by the BufferSource" since it can be a source of data races. They at least need to understand the consequences. As for return types, I strongly believe ArrayBuffer is correct where possible. It just makes more sense to give people the lower-level buffer primitive and letting them access it however they want. (And a DataView might be more correct than Uint8Array for people who want byte access, BTW.) Kind of like in C# returning IEnumerable<T> instead of ArrayList<T>. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 17:13:44 UTC