Re: [whatwg/encoding] Add support for whatwg streams (9224c4c)

Yeah!

> I guess we couldn't just add {writable, readable} to the TextEncoder instance?

If we make the existing encode() and transform stream interface co-exist, we will either have them work independently or work as two different data input paths for a single processing. I feel that former approach should be implemented in the ricea's way. I can't come up with clear and useful behavior of encode() for the latter. It could be either syntax sugar of writer.write() while there's an active writer, but it doesn't match the current definition of encode(). Making it bypass writer lock sounds bad in terms of the streams design philosophy.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/commit/9224c4cad81fd5720306fe79241cf04b5526a3f0#commitcomment-19169713