If necessary, i.e. if people want to release it before modules, we can make it
available in a single top-level object, but I would not at all favor dumping
everything onto the global scope.
Dave
On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:07 PM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> The intention has always been for them to be in a module. I'll make that
> clearer on the wiki.
>
> Dave
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, K. Gadd <k...@luminance.org> wrote:
>
>> <moving back onto list>
>>
>> It might be worth doing. On the one hand, I don't really feel like these
>> names *should* collide with anything, but it seems like the risk is kinda
>> high... and it's a little weird seeing them in global scope and having to
>> figure out that they're actually types for binary data and not, for example,
>> the constructor for boolean or some sort of value type ctor.
>>
>> Once 64-bit signed/unsigned ints are in will there be two names for those as
>> well? I.e. Uint64(...) produces one of the new 64-bit unsigned ints, while
>> uint64 is the name you use when creating a StructType to specify the type of
>> a field?
>>
>> If the type names used by binary data actually work as constructors to get
>> an instance of that type, that might make it more justified for the names to
>> be in global scope, but that seems like probably unmerited scope creep.
>>
>> Having the types be in a single 'BinaryTypes' namespace or something at
>> window-level seems like it would be pretty reasonable; if you're going to be
>> referring to types a lot you can pull them into locals, or use 'with' in a
>> gross non-strict function (yuck yuck yuck)
>>
>> I assume specifying type names as strings, i.e. { field: "uint32" } was
>> considered and ruled out (it would definitely be strange to mix that with
>> passing in actual StructType instances).
>>
>> -kg
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Dmitry Lomov <dslo...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:50 PM, K. Gadd <k...@luminance.org> wrote:
>> Does this mean the addition of binary data to a browser defines dozens of
>> new names in 'window' scope, like 'string' and 'boolean' and 'uint32'
>> alongside existing names? That's kind of surprising to me (though I can
>> understand why it might be necessary)
>>
>> Yes, this is where we are at now.
>> Maybe we should pack the whole thing into a module.
>>
>> Dmitry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Dmitry Lomov <dslo...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> string, boolean, object and any are all lowercase (we should fix the wiki)
>>
>> FWIW, I am already working on a new version of polyfill. It is fully ES5.
>> Here is a pull request: https://github.com/dherman/structs.js/pull/12 - I'll
>> merge it soon, and work more to cover everything in the proposal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dmitry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sorry, point 3 was actually the question about point 2
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Uhm, just a couple of extra question about that page if/when you have time:
>> • string and boolean are mentioned, but nowhere in your `struct.js`
>> prolyfill code. Will string and boolean be accepted?
>> • `Object` and `Any` are mentioned, but exported as object and any in
>> your `struct.js` prolyfill example. W
>> • Which is the right way?
>> The reason I am asking is to be able to create code that does absolutely
>> nothing (for performance reason) but will look like the real thing so I can
>> start experimenting with static structures and possibly a develop VS
>> production version of an ES3 to ES5 compatible polyfill since I believe your
>> code won't run anywhere except in SpiderMonkey (which is OK but it's not
>> suitable for a lightweight migration to "structure like" logic)
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Awesome, thanks!
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:12 PM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [In this
>>> page](http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed_objects), and in
>>> the latest meeting note too, I can read both uint8 and Uint8, as example.
>>
>> Bug. Fixed, thanks.
>>
>>> **The Question**
>>> How is `new StructType({x:Uint32, y:Uint32})` supposes to understand the
>>> type? `instanceof Uint32` or `typeof v === "uint32"` or ... both in case of
>>> `boolean` and `string` ?
>>
>> Neither. It tells you that the x and y fields have typeof 'number' and that
>> their values are constrained to be integers in the range [0, 2^32).
>>
>>> A bonus question would be: does anybody know when this stuff is planned to
>>> go out? Not a single beta/alpha channel is exposing anything at all so far.
>>
>> Nikhil Marathe and Niko Matsakis are actively working on the implementation
>> for SpiderMonkey:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=578700
>>
>> Dmitriy Lomov is actively working on updating the prollyfill to match the
>> current API:
>>
>> https://github.com/dherman/structs.js
>> https://github.com/dherman/structs.js/pull/12
>>
>> Not sure if anyone on the V8 team (which includes Dmitriy) has started
>> implementation but I believe they're interested. Right now Dmitriy is
>> focused on the prollyfill and spec.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
