Michel Fortin wrote: > ... > > As for .length, I'll say that removing this property would make it hard > to write low-level code. For instance, if I copy a string into a buffer, > I need to know the length in bytes (array.length * sizeof(array[0])), > not the number of characters. So it doesn't make much sense to disable > .length. > > ... >
This would be under the condition that there is another property that does the same (or similar) thing. It's the part where he said, "and define a different name for that". You could also just reinterpret them as byte[] or ubyte[]. Then they will behave in a low level way. No surprises.