On 06/01/2010 09:15 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Brendan:
To clear up something that misled me when reading the first few messages
of this struct thread:
I assume that the proposal is that:
const TA =
Array.newTypedArray(fixed_length,
Object.newStructType({x:"u32", y:"u32", z:"u32",
r:"u8", g:"u8", b:"u8", a:"u8"}));
let a = new TA(...);
b = a[i];
a[i].x += 1;
Now b.x also reflects the new value of a[i].x; i.e. b is an alias, not a
mutable copy.
That's a valid choice, but one that can't be applied 100% consistently.
For example, wouldn't the following create a mutable copy?
a[0] = b;
I'll also assume that all aliases will pin the entire array for the
purposes of garbage collection.
I'll still maintain that the choice that ECMA 334 takes, namely that the
assignment to b in the example above, makes a mutable copy is a valid
choice.
- Sam Ruby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
