On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
Yes, as currently spec'ed [[Get]] and [[Set]] operations upon TypedArray
instances throw if the backing ArrayBuffer has been neutered. But the
reason is in
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:51 PM, C. Scott Ananian ecmascr...@cscott.netwrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@chromium.orgwrote:
I think it would be weird if some of them fail hard and some would behave
as if the length is zero. Consistency is always good.
Why fail hard
On May 22, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Wait, am I reading this correctly that after a backing array buffer is
neutered, accesses to typed arrays within [0...original length) should throw
and accesses outside that range should continue to return 'undefined'? This
is
On 5/22/14, 12:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Out-of-bounds access have also been observed in non-Emscripten code, for
example [1] [2].
Out-of-bounds reads are very common in code that works with canvas
imagedata, because a lot of image-processing algorithms want to examine
adjacent pixels,
On May 22, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/22/14, 12:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Out-of-bounds access have also been observed in non-Emscripten code, for
example [1] [2].
Out-of-bounds reads are very common in code that works with canvas imagedata,
because a lot of
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Why didn't you provide a isNeutered predicate?
Note that per
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-dom-interfaces.html#transferable
there's more objects that can be neutered. Once
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
below
On May 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May
On May 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Finally, I note that the current Khronos spec. doesn't provide much
guidance in this regard. The thing it has that is most similar to the
other array methods is the 'subarray' method and it doesn't explicitly say
anything about
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Finally, I note that the current Khronos spec. doesn't provide much
guidance in this regard. The thing it has that is most similar to the
other array methods
On May 21, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
Finally, I note that the current Khronos spec. doesn't provide much
guidance in this regard.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
below
On May 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 20,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@chromium.org wrote:
I think it would be weird if some of them fail hard and some would behave
as if the length is zero. Consistency is always good.
Why fail hard is more desirable?
It is desirable because it allows for more efficient
I think it is better to have one legacy method that behaves differently
from all the other (new) methods then to maintain consistency by
introducing 20+ new bug farms.
Is it too late (or too unexpected) for
aTypedArray.subarray(aNeuteredObject)to throw in new contexts (i.e.,
modules,
On May 21, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:
I think it is better to have one legacy method that behaves differently from
all the other (new) methods then to maintain consistency by introducing 20+
new bug farms.
Is it too late (or too unexpected) for
ArrayBuffer instances whose [[ArrayBufferData]] is null are
considered to be neutered However, most algorithms only check for it
being undefined (and sometimes missing).
In addition, the behavior defined seems incompatible with what is in browsers:
On May 20, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
ArrayBuffer instances whose [[ArrayBufferData]] is null are
considered to be neutered However, most algorithms only check for it
being undefined (and sometimes missing).
The operations on ArrayBuffers all have lines that are the
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The ES6 TypedArray/ArrayBuffer spec. was written closely following the
Khronos spec. which is pretty vague about what happens when an ArrayBuffer
is neutered.
If you go through
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The ES6 TypedArray/ArrayBuffer spec. was written closely following the
Khronos spec. which is pretty vague about what happens when an ArrayBuffer
is
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The ES6 TypedArray/ArrayBuffer spec. was written closely following the
below
On May 20, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
The ES6
20 matches
Mail list logo
