allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue May 20 09:40:57 PDT 2014
On May 20, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <allen at 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
> http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/ and search
> for "neutered" it seems relatively clear. byteLength returns 0 and the
> other members follow from there.
Wow, I'm pretty sure all of those return 0 if neutered's weren't there when I used the Khronos spec. to generate the ES6 spec.
The change for byteLength of ArrayBuffer is trivial (and already done).
However, the changes for ArrayBufferView (note this doesn't actually exists in the ES spec.) and in particular the 'length' property of the various Typed Arrays has a lot of implications to consider.
In ES6, (almost) all of the Array.prototype methods are available as methods of typed arrays. Do you really want all of these, if applied to an Typed Array with a neutered ArrayBuffer to act as if they were a 0 length array. That would seem to just be a good way to obscure bugs as many of the array methods turn into no-ops when applied to 0-length arrays. With the current ES6 spec. they would throw as soon as they tried to access the underlying ArrayBuffer using the original length.
Also note, that ignoring this new requirement, a Typed Array's length, byteLength, and byteOffset are all constants and this fact is used in specifying the behavior of the methods that operate upon them. If they can change (even to 0) then this can occur on any operation that can trigger side-effects. (For example, consider calling the callback function on 'map' or similar methods). Do we really want to dynamically reconsider changes to ;length' as opposed to simply letting throws to occur on access to the neutered ArrayBuffer?
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 what happens when it is applied to a TypedArray with an underlying neutered ArrayBuffer.
>> Is this behavior actually specified anywhere. If not, do all significant
>> browsers implemented this behavior. Does web content depend upon it. (What
>> use could be made of knowing the (former) length of a neutered ArrayBuffer.
> What I tested seems to be specified and implemented by Firefox,
> Safari, and Chrome.
Sorry, I missed read your test case. I thought you were saying that the original length was preserved.
More information about the es-discuss