Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

%TypedArray% constructor simplification (closes #305) #310

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

littledan
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member

Line 30911 needs to be updated as well as this is not valid anymore: The %TypedArray% intrinsic function object is designed to act as the superclass of the various _TypedArray_ constructors.

See 9c10da5.

@allenwb
Copy link
Member

allenwb commented Jan 22, 2016

I don't like the new language for line 30911. I suggust something like:

The %TypedArray% intrinsic function object acts as the abstract superclass of the various TypedArray constructors. Because it is an abstract class constructor it throw an error when invoked. The TypeArray constructor do perform a super call to it.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member

@allenwb, I agree the language should be better.

The TypeArray constructor do perform a super call to it.

I'm confused, from what I know the TypedArray constructors does not perform a super call, they just inherit the %TypedArray% prototype and the constructor function is ignored.

@allenwb
Copy link
Member

allenwb commented Jan 22, 2016

oops, I just lost that a "not". Would be:
"... do not perform a super call it it."

@leobalter
Copy link
Member

Updated to 461e4c7, @littledan you might want to squash it to your commit. Note I also fix the section id as it was conflicting with 22.2.4.1 TypedArray constructor. It is formated that way based on other similar ids as #sec-%typedarray%-intrinsic-object

@littledan
Copy link
Member Author

@leobalter your patch looks good to me. File a PR to use rather than this one?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants