Jan 30 TC39 Meeting Notes

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 08:26:23 PST 2013

# January 30 2013 Meeting Notes

John Neumann (JN), Norbert Lindenberg (NL), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Rick
Waldron (RW), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Tim Disney (TD), Eric Ferraiuolo (EF),
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (STH), Erik Arvidsson (EA), Brian Terlson (BT), Luke
Hoban (LH), Matt Sweeney (MS), Doug Crockford (DC), Yehuda Katz (YK),
Nebojša Ćirić (NC), Brendan Eich (BE), Andreas Rossberg (ARB)

## Function In Block Options
(Presented by Luke Hoban)

Option #1: No let and const in non-strict mode
Option #2: Taking the breaking change, w/ evangelism
Option #3: Hybrid semantics for function-in-block, that still maintained
semantic alignment with let and const
Option #4: let/const anywhere in scope changes FIB semantics.

LH: a combination of 1 & 3 might be the best path forward.

Option #3

function foo() {
  bar();/// throw, extended TDZ
  for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
    bar(); // throw, TDZ
    let x = 10;
    // semantics of function in block are as though...
    // 1. let bar = function() {} were inserted
    // at start of block
    // 2. var bar = function() {} were inserted
    // at start of function
    // (1) accomplishes ES5 let/const semantics,
    // (2) accomplishes compat
    // These are combined with an extension of the TDZ rules
    // to throw on accesses to let bound variables
    // whose activation block has not et been created.
    function bar() {
    bar(); // succeed
  bar(); // throw, eTDZ

WH/ARB: if there is a let or const anywhere in the program, don't do this
in sloppy mode?

LH: There is an option, if you have any let or const, then function block
is ES6 semantics... But I don't know how we'd define this.

YK: I want to go on record that I don't support this kind of unrelated

RW: This is a language level weak inference...

WH: Far less a concern than burning people for the next twenty years.

BE: It's not an opt-in, it's allowing the syntax to speak for itself.

Discussion re: ES6 static semantics to determine runtime semantics.

LH: Option #4 is a possibility

MM: For both strict and non-strict?

LH: Option #4 in sloppy mode and clean up in strict mode.
...Key thing to note: the extended TDZ.

AWB: Is it compatible semantics with whats observed on the web...

Discussion about compatibility of options

STH: Pick one whether it works with what we want to do later

AWB: What are the compatibility requirements?

Discussion re: the sanity of each implementation's semantics.

BE: Not sure any are worth rescuing in sloppy mode. Leaning towards strict
mode to align the let, const and fix FIB semantics.

LH: (Presents:

Mixed Discussion centered around the intersection of implementation
semantics. Need to avoid creating yet a _new_ set of semantics that are
outside of the intersection semantics.

Avoid specifying any of this in sloppy mode? BE, MM, ARB, WH agree.

LH: I still think there is something that we can do to make this work.

MM, BE: Avoid two identities for function declarations.

AWB: Reiterates proposal: Don't hoist the initialization of the function,
initialize at the point of declaration.

STH: 1) define the semantics of let, const and FIB in sloppy mode and
require special casing, 2) don't define let, const and FIB in sloppy mode.
Define how the interact that's "mostly compatible with the intersection. Or
we prevent them from interacting by ruling out sloppy mode.

BE: ES6 let in sloppy code makes FIB ES6 semantics

**Option #2** will be rejected by implementors

**Option #1** No let and const in non-strict mode

LH: Addresses compatibility concern, Forks the language.

Paths of teaching JavaScript will hinge on whether you include "use strict".

eg. Can't copy-paste code from blog post into script tag.

MM, WH: Would like a meta tag that makes all scripts and inline JS

LH: Recognizes the ease of copy/paste JavaScript for teaching purposed.

MM: The future will all be "use strict"

RW: In the last two days there has been two different blog posts focused on
_removing_ strictness from JavaScript.

YK: Even if you think strict mode is ok now, but still has low uptake.
We're making it an obligation for new features which is too large of change.

Mixed discussion about the semantics and restrictions of strict mode.

Further discussion about how simple examples and teaching JS in the future
will require "use strict". Recognizing the real consequences of copy/paste

LH: Concerned that Option #1 will absorb ALL new things.


Option #0: No new syntax in non-strict mode
  0a. Truly no syntax (ARB) **Not Alive**
  0b. Allow module, but nothing else
  0c. Allow module and class, but nothing else
  0d. Allow everything with a body, but nothing else (the body is
implicitly strict) **Not Alive**

Option #1: No block scoping in non-strict mode **No Support**
  1a. Preserves everything except let, const and FIB

Option #2: Taking the breaking change **No Support**
    - (w/ evangelism)

Option #3: Hybrid semantics for function-in-block
  3a. In both strict and non-strict **No Support**
  3b. In only non-strict. Strict keeps ES6 block scope functions
  3c. Absolute minimum intersection semantics supported in non-strict, else
ES6 semantics

Option #4: let/const anywhere in scope changes FIB semantics

Option #5: No block scoping in ES6 **Strong Pushback (after discussion)**

(Note: "block scoping" means: let, const, class, FIB)

WH:  Are the options listed about what we want to spec or what the
implementations ought to *do* (leaving aside the question of whether or how
the standard specs it)?
LH: Here we're explicitly discussing what implementations should *do*.
[general agreement that this is what we're discussing at this point.]

LH: We cannot do FIB with meaningful semantics in the face of let/const

AWB: If you didn't have FIB, are there still issues?

LH: No.
...To avoid any issues at all, the solution is Option #5.

RW: Does that also include "class"?

STH/LH: Option #3 is the counter point to Option #5.

LH: Option #5 is only legit if Option #3 is rejected.

BE: Option #5 means that class can only appear where functions can appear.

MM: (reiterates belief that one the experiment of extending ES6 features
into sloppy mode has failed)  ((Note to Rick: We repeatedly clarified that
Dave's 1JS is not the extension of ES6 into sloppy mode. It is the earlier
realization that we didn't need an additional mode switch, such as an ES6

AWB: Working towards balancing the future... future advantages of block
scoping are so large that we should be willing to find a way to make them

BE, WH: The future is bigger then the past.

ARB: Wants #0 as cleanest and easiest path forward. (list updated)

BE: Option #0a is dead on arrival. (list updated)

AWB: Does #0d exclude rest and spread, destructuring? (list updated)

BE: Yes, Andreas and others discovered potential issues, probably not worth

...Yes, going with Option #0, changes the future

STH: One JS is about not having a switch to get new language features, eg.
a language version etc.

RW: "use strict" is still a big red switch.

STH: Yes

BE: Committee opinion on #0d?
#0d "not alive" (list updated)

Circular discussion about macrocodes caused by Option #1

YK: What about Option #4?

ARB: No.

AWB: Option #4 is an extension of Option #3, because it allows you to
safely shift into supporting let and const.

ARB: Strongly dislike because it has a refactoring hazard.

LH: If you're in strict, you already get correct semantics. Option #4 only
applies to non-strict mode.

ARB: Want as few component interactions as possible.

WH: This is the closest we can get in the face of web compatibility.

AWB: Proposes Option #3c...? In only the specific cases where a reference
does not have a local declaration


AWB: Willing to throw out function declarations created in eval.

WH: (Whiteboard)

var f = ...
function a() {
  if ( false ) {
    function f() {}


WH: What do we want this to do?

BE: In IE, the inner f hoists. In SpiderMonkey, no hoist. What should we do?

Option #3c: Absolute minimum intersection semantics supported in
non-strict, else ES6 semantics.

BE: I think we can do #3c and Allen can make it work, concerned that
Waldemar will poke holes and be unhappy.

WH: The above must call the outer f in strict mode. In non-strict mode we
shouldn't specify what this does (it becomes a moot point if we continue to
outlaw nested functions in non-strict mode). For compatibility we'd want to
add an informative note stating that, if the implementation extends
non-strict mode with nested functions, the similar program below calls the
inner f:

var f = ...
function a() {
  if ( true ) {
    function f() {}


...There is no support for #3a (list updated)

LH: #3b is the bridge between compatibility and progress.

AWB: #3c covers the minimum use cases for compatibility

WH: #3c and 4 are similar

LH: Still supporting #3b

(Break for Lunch)

LH: Summary of current discussion. Why is that people are concerned about
any of the #3's?

ARB: A lot of time for the committee to spend on identifying the sloppy
mode issues. Why introduce complexity for something "transitional"

LH: So, not really an argument _against_ #3, but for #0

ARB: And not creating a more complicated language


AWB: [#3] Arguably no more complicated then [#0]

MM: (Uses "duplicate parameters in parameter lists with defaults" as
example of adding complexity)

AWB/MM/WH: (Discussion around complexity implications)

AWB: Complexity that occurs in edge cases is not

LH: We can't argue complexity... Let's look at the trade off for long term
goals of the language

BE: Can we get rid of Option #1?

Yes. Option #1: no support. (list updated)

LH: For those that support Option #0, If we couldn't get consensus on
Option #0, what are the material arguments against Option #3?

BE: (Makes further case for the future friendliness of #0d)

LH: Reiterates the previous question...

BE: Option #3c could work really well

WH: If we go with #3c, there is no spec work, just implementors

AWB: Yes, there is spec work...

Discussion comparing the specifics of #3b & #3c

Support moving to #3c.

AWB: If sloppy mode, here is a compatibility issue.

MM/ARB: (Answering Luke's earlier question) If Option #0 is off the table,
then there is no opposition to #3b or #3c.

Allen will spec #3c static semantics with informative note for review,
tentatively to fallback to #3b

BE: Make an error?

MM: Benefit to future implementors that want to be in conformance by making
them errors?

BE: Refutes

MM: Retracts

AWB: Sloppy mode has let, const and class grammatically and semantics

Return to the bigger issue...

Reiterates Kevin Smith's proposal:

1. No opt-in required for new syntax, except
2. Except: No breaking changes to sloppy mode
3. No grammar contortions (e.g. let) to support sloppy mode
4. All new syntax forms with code bodies are implicit strict

BE: Appears to be stand between #0 and #3

MM: Still opposed to the let issue, by creating a potential hazard.

BE: At last meeting we agreed to break this... (whiteboard)

var let;
let[x] = y;

AWB: We discussed this last meeting and agreed.

MM: I changed my mind.

WH: This is actually a grammar issue, which means that you must be able to
parse it before you know whether or not you're in strict mode.

MM: Reiterates concern about creating potential hazards

LH: If we want to add new syntax, we're going to encounter these issues no
matter what "mode" we're in... Hinging new syntax the fact that a small
window reserved a few keywords won't scale (let, const, etc).

AWB: There is a certain circularity in arguments that are fine with new
features only in strict, but also fine with allowing a single conflicting

MM: Reiterates

WH: So the argument is that we're making "sloppy mode" too attractive?

MM: Yes, avoid linguistic screw-ups.

LH: A lot of us don't view as "screw-ups"

WH: strict mode is just too complicated for user land code with many
scripts on one page.

MM: If we're going to continue to support "sloppy mode", we need to make
any use of "let" as a variable an error (retro-active reserve?). Cites
Safari experiment of "let", Firefox experiments with "let".

LH/BT: Get data on use of "let"

MM: I'm back to where I was previously... I don't care enough to argue

(Note: Previous discussion can be found here:

LH: Option #0 is too short sighted and based on "luck"... There won't be
another opportunity to retro-reserve words, as there was with Strict Mode

MM: Two scenarios:
1. A breaking change that leaves the language in a better, more consistent
2. A breaking change that mars the languages and creates something that you
constantly need to be aware of...

LH: (anecdotal C# experience)

MM: Counter with sentiments re: language complexity.

AWB/WH: Appear to be converging...

MM: I won't block the let kludge

AWB: But we need to address the larger issue of features in non-strict mode

WH: If there are concrete concerns, I want them on the table, but I don't
want to spend more time on abstract arguments.

ARB: Concrete issues have arisen

WH: What are they?

AWB: We expect to have concerns.

ARB: issues with destructuring in sloppy mode

AWB: We have a spec for this.

MM: A spec that special cases for these issues and pays an unnecessary
complexity cost.

AWB: Reiterates the concern that user code will not want to "use strict"

EA: I don't want forked languages

ARB/MM: Too many small breaks add up, I want to avoid introducing new

AWB: Fundamentally two approaches:
1. A discontinuity, resulting in multiple versions.
2. A single version, evolves incrementally.

LH: (Insight regarding the effects of "mental forking")

WH/DC: (Discussion about the inline-script problem)

DC: Code has long been moving away from inline code and our goals shouldn't
be to preserve that.

LH: But there are still multiple scripts

DC: Strict mode is the path forward, we can maintain ES3 and ES5 "sloppy
mode", but ES5 "strict mode" is the way forward.

AWB/YK: Even the term "sloppy mode" is a pejorative.

DC/YK: (Discussion about the current state of strict mode)

WH/YK: We have data that 10% of uses aren't even being used correctly,
where "use strict" isn't correctly in the prologue position.

YK: Worried that people will want to use new features, but simply won't
understand the requirement "use strict"

DC: This is not hard

...Continued discussion.

LH: ...Interjects to resteer conversation

?: The fundamental disagreement is about whether we want to make a simpler
spec for the future by basing new features on strict mode only.

WH: No, that's not the bone of contention. WH would also prefer to have a
simpler strict-only spec for new features, but supports 3c/4 from earlier
because getting into strict mode is too inconvenient. Today it's too
awkward to get into strict mode in practice for web pages, although this
may change in the future?. Too many (10%) web pages unknowingly get this
wrong by putting a "use strict" somewhere other than the preamble.

MM: What do you see would need to happen to make strict mode convenient

WH: Two requirements:
1. Need a clear indication that a user's attempt to get into strict mode
failed, such as having a ```use strict``` directive rather than overloading
a string constant. It's obvious from the data that the bug that the strict
mode directive doesn't go into strict mode if it's in the wrong place hits
too many users.
2. Need a way to declare that all scripts on a page are strict. That's out
of our control, but this is a prerequisite to making strict mode convenient
for multi-script pages (and WH is aware of the potential issues of scripts
coming from different sources).

YK: Hopefully I've made it clear that the current state of strict mode
tooling is at a significant disadvantage.

MM: I understand that we need to work with DOM spec writers to get means of
making "global" strict mode a reality.

Revisiting past conversations that led from ES6 being "versioned", to being
"strict mode" only, to being "one js".

LH: We did adopt One JS. There have been two concrete issues:

MM: Terminology: "one js"?

LH: As in, new features do not require "use strict" or a "version"...
Recommend continuing in the default direction: Continue on the path we're

MM: That is not the meaning of "one js" (Rick: It's really important that
we not confuse this issue with 1JS.))

AWB: If we can't agree on a new position.

WH: Wants to hear from others...

RW: (big spiel about strict mode and new features)

EF: Agrees and supports default strict mode in modules. Not enough of a
historic sample to say whether what size "switch" and how many "switches"
to have will be idea. We only have one real sample so far, ES3 -> ES5. The
new ES6 strict mode will only be the second.

RW: Agrees with Eric and supports strict bodies by default.

DC: Including class?

RW: Yes

YK: Not Arrows

MM: Agree, not on that boundary.

LH/MM: Closer to comfort if classes and modules have strict bodies.

MM: Agreed not to hold up consensus

YK/RW: No Arrows

Consensus on...
Stay the course on spec development approach
Class, Modules implicitly strict.
Arrows not strict
Sustaining our position on the handling of let ambiguities
(Note: this is a local consensus)

MM: Declared as not holding up consensus, though not in agreement. I still
think this is a terrible idea, but it looks like the best we can declare
consensus on.

BE: (Out of band) I think that's a good consensus, arrows can't have
intrinsic names (contrast with NFEs) so arguments.callee may be wanted, so
arrows should not be strict-only.

## Static/Class Side Methods
(Presented by Yehuda Katz)

  "static" MethodDefinition

Full strawman here:

Supported by TypeScript, Continuum, etc.

Consensus in support of this proposal. (File spec update ticket)

## Revising The Array Subclassing "Kind" Issue
(Presented by Allen Wirfs-Brock)

Reiterates the issue at hand, illustrated here:

class V extends Array {
  constructor(...args) {

var v, m;
v = new V(1,2,3, );
m = v.map(val => val * 2);
console.log( m instanceof V ); // false :(

If we extend...

`Array.from( iterable ) => Array.from( iterable, mapFn )`

// Add a "map" function to the class-side from method:
NodeList.from( nodelist, thing => thing );

// Turn an array into NodeList
NodeList.from( array, thing => thing );

// Turn an array of nodeNames into NodeList of nodes
NodeList.from( ["div"], node => document.createElement(node) );

MM: thisArg?

EF: It's possible to lose the context if you alias the ClassMethod

MM: For consistency purposes, add thisArg

Consensus on this proposal, with the addition of thisArg per Mark's request.

## 4.7  Fail-fast destructuring with ?-syntax for irrefutable opt-in
(Presented by Brendan Eich, Andreas Rossberg)

1. No ToObject(RHS).
2. Exception on missing property selected without a ?-suffix.
3. ?-suffix allowed on any pattern, imputing undefined deeply instead of
4. The ? is a separate lexeme from the : in long-hand patterns.

One entry point:

Allen argues cogently against (1) but endorses (2-4).

BE: (Whiteboard)
var { toLocaleString, split } = "";

The only ones that are affected: string, number, boolean.

ARB: implicit conversion is future-hostile to pattern matching.

STH: (Whiteboard) Example of pattern matching.

switch ("x") {
  match {}: return 1;
  match _: return 2;

 You do not want implicit conversions in pattern matching, which would make
this take the first branch. Similarly, if we allow matching literal strings.

ARB: For consistency, would imply conversions for other pattern types, too
(e.g. literals). No issue technically, but insane from practical perspective

BE: Reiterates... In the case where

There is no history of primitives being used on the RHS, so there is no
need to support any kind of implicit ToObject.

"You say po-tah-to and that doesn't change tomato".


MM: Question about cover grammar.

AWB: The grammar is spec'ed and in the latest draft.


YK: Wants irrefutable destructuring, ie.

function Foo(options) {
  var { foo } = options;
  // if foo is not a property of options,
  // just give me "foo" that's undefined

BE: Use the ?

function Foo(options) {
  var { foo }? = options;

WH: Is ? deep or shallow? i.e. what should the following do
var { p, r }? = q;
? answered:
- if q is null: p and r are undefined
- if q is {r: 7}: p is undefined, r is 7.
WH: That means that ? is deep.

WH: Given the discussion above [not recorded in these notes?] about doing
primitive pattern matching assertions in the future, just curious what the
semantics of ? ought to be so that it would interact well with such
assertions. Example:
What should ? do in these cases?
let {p, q}? = {p:17}
Here p gets 17 and q gets undefined because ? distributes down.
But then what happens when we get value assertions? Without getting into
syntax details, assume that x: true is a value assertion that fails unless
property x exists and has the value true.
let {p: {x: true}}? = null
let {p: {x: true}}? = {q: null}
let {p: {x: true}}? = {p: null}
let {p: {x: true}}? = {p: {}}

Mixed Discussion and debate, re: pattern matching examples.

BE: Return to... Waldemar, are you satisfied with ? for irrefutable

WH: The question, is there a purpose of having a shallow "?".

BE: The common case is implied deep "?"

AWB: More comfortable if there was a strawman of what the full language
would be like in the future.

BE: Dave has a proposal written, but we need to capture the latest

ARB will work out new pattern matching strawman based on proposed ideas.

BE: (to YK) have we assuaged your concerns about irrefutable destructuring?

YK: yes, as long as "?"

1. No implicit ToObject(RHS). **consensus**
2. Exception on missing property selected without a ?-suffix. **consensus**
3. ?-suffix allowed on any pattern, imputing undefined deeply instead of
refuting. **consensus**
4. The ? is a separate lexeme from the : in long-hand patterns.

"?" in combination with default values, syntax error.
{ a? = 42 } // throws.

If you write a "?" on a larger structure, you can have default values
anywhere inside.

{ a: b = 42 }? = undefined

WH: Where should the ? go syntactically? In particular, should we have
{p: q?}, {p:? q}, or {p?: q}

let { p }? = null;  // p bound to undefined
let { p? } = null;  // throws
let { p: q }? = null; // q bound to undefined
let { p?: q } = null; // throws

WH: This is quite close to conflicting with the ternary operator but can't
think of any obvious ambiguities as long as the ? in patterns is always
followed by =, }, comma, or :.

Dependent on patterns being fail-fast:
ARB: Cute idea: Make ```undefined``` into a keyword that is also a pattern
that matches only the undefined value. This way existing definitions such as
var undefined;
var undefined = <something that evaluates to undefined>;
(function (undefined){})()
will work, but
var undefined = 42;
will fail.

**General Agreement**

## 4.11 Name Property of Functions
(Presented by Brendan Eich, with additions by Brandon Benvie)

BE: Early approaches...

function f() {}
f.name == "f";

BE: (from Brandon Benvie's proposal)

Justification: the usefulness of the name of function is not just for
debugging. It is useful in the same ways that property names as strings are
such as dispatching by name or assigning by name.

1. Every function has an own "name" property, and this property is always a
string (unless the user specifically decides to violate this norm).
2. This name property is initialized with the value that makes sense from
static semantics.
3. Allow predefined names to be altered in cases where it makes sense.


The baseline descriptor for every function is the 'name' property defined as
{ value: "",
  writable: true,
  enumerable: false,
  configurable: false }

For FunctionDeclarations, named FunctionExpressions, MethodDefinitions, or
accessor Properties then the function's "name" property is set to the given

In the case of the constructor method of classes, the class
name is used instead.

In the case of accessors, "get" or "set" is included.

The "name" property is set to non-writable.

Function.prototype's name is also non-writable.

Anonymous FunctionExpressions and ArrowFunctionExpressions assigned in a
VariableDeclaration or ObjectExpression are given the name of the variable
or property they are assigned to and the name remains writable.

Anonymous ClassExpressions follow the same semantics, with the name being
used for the constructor method.

Whenever a function's name is defined by a Symbol instead of a regular
identifier then the name is the result of ToString(symbol).

The name property should (probably) not have any reflection on the output
of Function.prototype.toString.

MM: Having the result of toString be immutable is important, agree with
proposal semantics.
...Security leakage from the name property, is the type of information that
the toString method leaks. No integrity issue, just a confidentially issue.

BE: We _could_ make Function.prototype.toString be a getter that can be

MM: This is one of the aspects that I gave up attempts to secure, and it's
never been an issue.

BE: Make it writable?

WH/MM/AWB/YK: Writable.

WH: There is a slight advantage to making it non-writable. Otherwise when
writing it to change the function name, you'd expect it to change the
result of "toString".

Discussion re: history of Function.prototype.toString result.

MM: Explain the divergence, toString is a reflection of the source code
itself and the name is how you'd like to identify the function within tools.

Consensus on the proposal, with { writable: true }

## 4.12 Typed Arrays Update
(Presented by Allen Wirfs-Brock)

Slides (pdf):

AWB: We're absorbing control of the TypedArray specification, previously
authored by Khronos.

W3C has dependencies on the Khronos spec.

This specification will not include any parts of the Khronos spec, but will
be compatible.

JN: We need to make sure we're not violating anyone's IPR, Istvan can

EA: We can have Ken (Kenneth Russell, Google) review the drafts.

LH: Short term, the editors need to understand what's going on and there is
no push back. The standards organizations need to know that we're now
working on this specification. **Agreement**

AWB: (Proceeds to technical presentation)

**Integrate into ES Spec**
- ES spec conventions and semantics not WebIDL
  - Khronos spec not necessarily tracking WebIDL
  - eg. instanceof
- Lot's of implementation differences among browsers at MOP level to
straighten out
- TypedArrays are subclassable

LH: TypedArray implementations are incompatible in the same way that all
DOM implementations are incompatible, because WebIDL is not implemented

**Max Length**
- Currently Khronos spec's all lengths as Uint32
- Not future friendly, especially for byte sussed element arrays
    - eg. a Uint8Array might map to a large real memory-mapped buffer
bigger then 4GB.

LH/AWB: Seems that WebIDL is the cause of this constraint.

AWB: I'm going to spec the max length at Int, not Uint32

LH: Should record the deltas

**Khronos/W3C TypedArray Objects**

AWB: 9 prototype objects, 54 distinct method/get accessor functions per

MM: How did we get 9?

LH: UintClampedArray, which used to be CanvasPixelArray

**Prototype Hierarchy Factoring**

AWB: 10 Prototype objects, 6 distinct method/get accessor functions per

#10, TypedArray.prototype
+ [ BYTES_PER_ELEMENT: int abstract ]
+ set() void
+ subarray() void
+ byteLength() int get
+ byteOffset() int get
+ buffer() Object get
+ length() long get

Int8Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=1),
Int32Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=4),
Uint8Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=8),
Uint32Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=4),
Float32Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=4),
Float64Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=8),
Int16Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=1),
Uint16Array (BYTES_PER_ELEMENT int=1),

MM: A Uint1Array or BooleanArray, where each element is one bit.

**TypedArrays act like fixed length, numeric element JS Arrays**

- So why not even better Array integration?
- Class methods?
  - TypedArray.of
  - TypedArray.from
- TypedArrays should be iterables?
  - @@iterator
  - keys
  - values
  - entries

**Even Better Array Integration**
- Other Array.prototype methods that will work just fine on TypedArrays
  - toString, toLocaleString, concat, join, reverse, slice, sort, indexOf,
lastIndexof, every, some, forEach, map, filter, reduce, reduceRight
- Only 5 Array.prototype methods won't work with TypedArrays
  - push, pop, shift, unshift, splice

**Add Array methods to TypedArray**

WH: Are TypedArrays spread by Array.prototype.concat and ...?

LH: TypedArrays are a targeted tool for byte level programming.
...Doesn't think that the generic, higher-order Array APIs should be
exposed on TypedArray

WH: [Repeats question]

?: TypedArrays are not exotic arrays so don't get spread by
Array.prototype.concat and ... . On the other hand,
TypedArray.prototype.concat will spread TypedArrays only.


[Debate about whether TypedArrays need the suite of Array methods]

YK: Using TypedArrays would be a pain if they didn't already offer these
array operations.

WH: It would be too confusing to have gratuitously different APIs for two
array-like things in the language.

RW: Agree.

AWB: My understanding was that we were absorbing these in order to provide
the capabilities that the language provides

STH/WH/YK/RW/EA: Strong Agreement.

LH: Agree that there are some use-cases for these, but may not be our place
to define these methods

YK: (channelling Alex Russell) The reason we're taking this on, is because
it's our responsibility to correct "yet another array like thing that isn't
an array"

RW: Agrees.

LH: Implementation and performance issue concerns?

WH: This is not a lot of work for implementations, and implementations (as
opposed to users) are clearly in the better place to implement these

[STH: After the end of the official meeting, there was some discussion as
to why Typed Arrays wouldn't just become genuine Arrays.  This would mean
that they'd have all the Array methods, some of which would throw on use
(those that change length). This needs discussion at a future meeting.]

Move forward with the plan presented.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130207/37a41777/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list