David Herman wrote:
> Typed Arrays are a different beast that already exist in the real world. I
don't see any need for consistency between Typed Arrays and struct types.
Consistency between Typed Arrays and Array is more important.
Mostly agreed, except I'd just refine that to say there's no need for
consistency*in this dimension*. It would be a shame if typed arrays weren't
generalized by the typed objects API in general, and I worked hard to make the
pieces fit together. That nuance aside,
I think you are too kind :-|.
Allen, the point about typed arrays being different from structs because
some implementations make the former extensible and the latter do not
exist in any implementation yet is a just-so story, half of which is
hypothetical! I could just as well argue from Firefox's non-extensible
precedent if I wanted to.
The better argument is one that accounts for *why* structs are not
extensible and how typed arrays differ, if they do differ, by design --
not based on implementation in some but not all browsers.
the fact that, in practice, arrays are patched with additional properties (in
fact, IIRC the ES6 template strings API adds properties to arrays) suggests
that non-extensibility would be a real incompatibility between arrays and typed
arrays.
This only goes so far, since one could try to argue from objects to
structs in the same way. What's the difference-in-kind reason? I can
give answers but I'm looking for others' answers.
So I'm cool with making typed arrays -- but not structs -- extensible.
It's ok if we decide this, but let's have a not-just-so story beyond the
array-like use-case one -- it's good but without something else, it
could reason from objects to structs, but no one here wants extensible
structs. (Right?)
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
