[Bug 23416] Introduce new concept of neutered

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23416

--- Comment #6 from Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> ---
"Ask someone else for more info" isn't really a reasonable response, when
you're the one that opened the bug.

FYI, I already filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23417. 
Otherwise, I'd reopen 23385, which was closed without explanation to people
reading the bug.

If transferring a neutered Blob doesn't throw an exception, and results in a
neutered Blob on the other side, then transferring a neutered ArrayBuffer needs
to also not throw an exception and result in a neutered ArrayBuffer on the
other side.  The effect of Blob.close() making the Blob inaccessible is
logically equivalent to transfer making objects inaccessible.  It's strange and
inconsistent for them to have different sets of side-effects.  Dead objects
should either be clonable or not, whether they're an ArrayBuffer or a Blob.

Pulling out Blob.close() into a separate thing that's just like neutered but
separate is the worst solution.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 03:27:04 UTC