But why not simply TypedArray then? Jürg
On 18 May 2010, at 01:10, Kenneth Russell wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Name is important. As a stawman I suggest replacing the name ArrayBuffer >> with BinaryBlob (Binary is redundant in this context but I'd be worried >> about name conflicts with just Blob). BinaryBuffer would also work but the >> word buffer may carry implications for some people that do really apply here. > > Out of curiosity what are the implications of the word "buffer"? > > Out of the naming suggestions proposed here I still prefer > "ArrayBuffer". It meshes with the name of the spec -- TypedArrays -- > and indicates that it's the buffer which backs the various views. > > -Ken > >> Allen >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss- >>> boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Chris Marrin >>> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 7:27 AM >>> To: Alex Russell >>> Cc: a...@mozilla.com; public-script-co...@w3.org; Erik Arvidsson; es- >>> disc...@mozilla.org >>> Subject: Re: Adoption of the Typed Array Specification >>> >>> >>> On May 13, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >>> >>>> On May 13, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is difficult to do, given the goals of typed arrays -- they wouldn't >>>>> behave >>> like normal Arrays in most meaningful ways. >>>> >>>> Sounds like a bug to be fixed ;-) >>>> >>>>> At the core, an ArrayBuffer is of fixed size, and it doesn't make sense >>>>> to index >>> an ArrayBuffer directly (because there's no indication of what format the >>> data >>> should be accessed in). Making the array view types instances of Array might >>> work, but again given that they're fixed length, there's a significant >>> difference >>> there. >>>> >>>> >>>> That the length property of a particular array subclass leaves the >>>> constructor >>> non-configurable and read-only isn't much of a trick in ES5. That said, why >>> *doesn't* TypedArray spec a mutable variant? Surely it'd be useful. >>> >>> One of the important aspects of ArrayBuffer is its fixed length. As I >>> mentioned >>> before, perhaps the issue here is the poor naming (using "Array" in the >>> names of >>> objects that don't behave in the same way as the ES Array object). The names >>> can be changed but I think we need the concept of a fixed length buffer with >>> fixed views into it. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
