Oh, of course: I completely forgot about that. Thanks for the link!
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Dmitry Lomov <[email protected]> wrote: > Typed Objects polyfill lives here: https://github.com/dherman/structs.js > Dave and I work on it, current status is pretty close to strawman minus > handles and cursors (which are a bit controversial at this point and as far > as I understand are not is Firefox implementation). > The polyfill includes a bunch of tests; I haven't yet run it on Mozilla > tests - will get to it soon hopefully. > > I welcome and will be happy to review polyfill patches. > > Dmitry > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Till Schneidereit < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, K. Gadd <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Are there any known-good polyfills for the current draft Typed Objects / >>> Binary Data spec? >>> >> >> I want this, too, and will start working on it soon-ish if nobody else >> does or already did. >> >> >>> Presently, JSIL has a set of primitives that roughly correspond with a >>> big chunk of the draft specification. I'm interested in seeing whether they >>> can work atop ES6 typed objects, which means either adapting it to sit on >>> top of an existing polyfill, or turning my primitives into a polyfill for >>> the draft spec. If it's useful I might be able to find time for the latter >>> - would having a polyfill like that be useful (assuming a good one doesn't >>> already exist)? >>> >>> Having an efficient equivalent to the spec in JS VMs is pretty important >>> for JSIL to ever be able to deliver emscripten-level performance (a single >>> emscripten-style fake heap is not an option because .NET relies on garbage >>> collection). If a polyfill (even a partial one) could help move the process >>> along for the spec, that'd be great. If what the process actually needs is >>> some sort of feedback, maybe I could offer that instead. The status of the >>> spec is unclear to me :) >>> >> >> The strawman at [1] is fairly close to what's going to end up in the >> spec, content-wise. Additionally, the implementation in SpiderMonkey is >> pretty complete by now, and there are lots of tests[2]. I don't know what >> the timing for integrating Typed Objects into the spec proper is, cc'ing >> Niko for that. >> >> >> cheers, >> till >> >> >> [1]: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:typed_objects >> [2]: >> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/tests/ecma_6/TypedObject/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Google Germany GmbH > *Dienerstr. 12, 80331 München., DE * >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
