to be honest I thought those were Symbols rather than some type/brand
representation and as "symbols" I've shimmed them too.
Float32Array is a thing already, I honestly wouldn't mind Int32, Uint32,
Uint64, Float32, Float64 and other constructors too in the global scope
since I don't see any other possible usage for those constructors if not
this ... we shouldn't really fear to make sense with extra global stuff, it
avoids a lot of repeated shortcuts, IMO
In SpiderMonkey there is already the ctypes namespace and I agree, as long
as it's meaningful (and hopefully not so boring to write every time), a
namespace would work and look way better.
B as Binary Object or b, as binary namespace or even binary would be OK
**but** this stuff has been renamed already into Typed Object so binary
should be left aside ..
T as entry point for Types ... I lie it but I am sure somebody will laugh
about a single char namespace, even if T is used everywhere to describe
Types indeed in all other programming languages ...
typed would be meaningful too, together with types ... and probably
TypedObject too but latter one is very "boring" to write each time so it
will be a mandatory shortcut for every single closure that would like to
use it (at least that's what my crystal ball says ^_^)
My 2 cents
On Wed, 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. string and boolean are mentioned, but nowhere in your
>>>>>> `struct.js` prolyfill code. Will string and boolean be accepted?
>>>>>> 2. `Object` and `Any` are mentioned, but exported as object and
>>>>>> any in your `struct.js` prolyfill example. W
>>>>>> 3. 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
