- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:40:55 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/11/2012 1:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/11/12 4:06 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: >> It's a bit worse than that, actually: if you want to send only part of a >> buffer, you have to create a whole new ArrayBuffer and copy the data >> over. If you just pass "view.buffer", you'll send the *whole* >> underlying buffer, not just the slice represented by the view. > > Oh, that's just broken. > > That argues for the removal of the ArrayBuffer overload, indeed, and > just leaving the ArrayBufferView version. I've got no idea where TC39 is taking things. I think that's the bigger issue here. Yes, I've been bitten by trying to use .subarray instead of .slice (as Glenn points out). If ArrayBufferView becomes a JS semantic, some of this is moot; and ArrayBuffer is still very necessary for compatibility. All of the postMessage semantics use ArrayBuffer AFAIK. I know you've been circling this issue for awhile, so I'll put it out there again: yes, using typed arrays is difficult. -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 20:41:17 UTC