@moriken awesome work -- looks like a solid implementation.
I'm torn about whether this should be subsumed into ECMAScript. Doing so
implies that all ES engines are going to have to incorporate a significant
amount of code to convert to and from half-floats. Also, the tests will
have to be a lot m
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> below
> On May 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> wrote:
>>> The ES6 TypedArray/ArrayBuffer spec. was written closely following the
>>> Khronos spec. which is pretty vague
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
> > https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1557 is a request that
> > StringView [1] over ArrayBuffers be added to ES.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
d solve the problem of figuring
> out when/how often to create DataView instances, and eliminate the garbage
> created by using DataViews.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Aymeric Vitte
>> wrote:
>
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
>
> Le 02/04/2013 04:24, Kenneth Russell a écrit :
>>
>> Agreed. DataView's methods are all simple and should be easy to
>> optimize. Because they include a conditional byte swap, they can't run
>> quit
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Kevin Gadd wrote:
> One could also argue that people using typed arrays to alias and munge
> individual values should be using DataView instead. If it performs poorly,
> that can hopefully be addressed in the JS runtimes (the way it's specified
> doesn't seem to pr
Dmitry, thank you for prototyping and benchmarking this. There should
be no question that a slowdown of 25% is too high a cost to pay.
Allen's analysis earlier in the thread indicates that no spec changes
are necessary in order to allow multiple bit patterns to be used when
storing NaNs into Float
at it is the right thing to do.
-Ken
> Dave
>
> This was not the plan of record on TC39. The plan was to fix the semantics as
> little-endian.
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> Right, thanks for the reminder. It all comes back now, including t
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>>> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
BTW, isn't cannonicalization of endian-ness for both integers and floats
a bigger interop issue than NaN cannonicali
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Kenneth Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> > For interop, JS requires cross-browser (VM) NaN canonicalization to
>>> > avoid
>>> > observably different results on different browsers.
>>
&g
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:34 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Russell wrote:
>>> I hope that the ES6 integration of typed arrays will not require
>>> normalization of NaNs on write, even if other specification
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Kenneth Russell wrote:
>>
>> I hope that the ES6 integration of typed arrays will not require
>> normalization of NaNs on write, even if other specification changes
>> need to be made to avoid requiring it.
>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
>>>
>>> That normalization on read is is my case 1 above — it is necessary _for
>>> that implementation_. A conformant implementati
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski
wrote:
> I was just reading through the binary data proposal [1] and I have a few
> comments / questions:
>
> First of all, how will this integrate with the Typed Arrays? Will a struct
> have an intrinsic ArrayBuffer? What about an ArrayType insta
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On May 27, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>> Well-supported arrays of structs (as schemas) might be a satisfactory
>>> compromise. Consensus emerging around that solution.
>>
>> Structs in ECMA-334 are value types, and consist of memb
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> Having unspecified endianness in the specification of TypedArrays seems like
> a show-stopper to me. There are two alternatives here:
>
> - If you do any I/O, you want the endianness to be specified. Sending data
> from one process to ano
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Mark Seaborn wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>> Whew. Yes, copy-on-write sharing with workers is a great idea. IIUC, it
>>> should be a comple
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>
>> On May 18, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Erik Corry wrote:
>>>
>>> 2010/5/18 Kenneth
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
>>
>> On May 18, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> > Resending this now that i'm signed up on the es-discuss list.
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Erik Arvidsso
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
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 b
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>> Vladimir Vukicevic vladi...@mozilla.com said:
>
>>However, another consideration is that the WebGL spec isn't ES specific,
>> and yet has to depend on typed arrays. So perhaps we're really talking
>> about two different specs: a main ty
On Thu, 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 cor
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> Arun,
>
> Thanks for forcing this into our attention. At a functional level, this
> appears to be proceeding in a reasonable direction. However, I think there
> are some problematic issues about the form and depth of the specificatio
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>>
>> Greetings, TC-39 WG and script mavens!
>>
>> Browser vendors participating in the WebGL WG intend to implement the
>> "Typed Arrays" specification, allowing for greater manipula
Apologies for not replying to the thread properly; just joined the list.
The typed array proposal Vlad sent out covers the WebGL use case and
others which assemble data on the CPU to be handed to, for example, a
graphics or audio subsystem.
I've seen some feedback that the proposal misses an impo
26 matches
Mail list logo
