Re: [w3c/FileAPI] Streams is hot, FileReader.readAs____ is not (#40)

I can't make spec editor or implementer commitments at the moment so no
urgency on my part.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Jimmy Karl Roland Wärting <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

> I like .stream() without promise
> It short!
>
> You haven't thought of doing .toArrayBuffer() or .asArrayBuffer() so why
> should .stream() be prefixed with to/as while arrayBuffer don't?
>
> Its more like fetch. you get the stream from res.body and res.arrayBuffe()
> as promise
>
> So I don't think there's any confusion. I just think it's better to mimic
> the Response method .arrayBuffer() .text()
>
> If you want to get a stream synchronized you could still use the Response
> hack I shown you initially (which would break the purpes of having
> something like toStream() be prototyped to blob in the first place)
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/issues/40#issuecomment-249888235>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAvF2yAFadYnM-GM3VMeg0mRzxWQK8doks5quS8ZgaJpZM4Izqf9>
> .
>


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/issues/40#issuecomment-249916558