On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Filip Pizlo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do. Placing named properties on arrays makes sense. Consider a matrix
> implemented as a Float32Array, with named properties telling you the numRows
> and numCols. Just one example.
There are of course other ways to achieve this that don't involve patching the
array object, such as building a data abstraction for matrices that has-a
Float32Array, or creating a new array type with additional methods:
var Matrix = new ArrayType(float32);
Matrix.prototype.numRows = function() { ... }
// or
Object.defineProperty(Matrix.prototype, { get: function() { ... }, ... });
>> TA instances having no indexed expandos but allowing named ones is weird.
>> Better to be consistent to users
>
> Consistency would imply doing what other indexed types do.
Consistency arguments won't get you very far. The indexed properties of typed
arrays by design act very differently from other indexed types. That's their
whole reason for existence.
And the other consistency dimension is between array types and struct types. Is
anyone arguing that structs should also have expandos?
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
