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

Add node/string_decoder and some more #6638

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jul 14, 2020
Merged

Add node/string_decoder and some more #6638

merged 10 commits into from
Jul 14, 2020

Conversation

Soremwar
Copy link
Contributor

@Soremwar Soremwar commented Jul 5, 2020

  • Add support and tests for encodings(required changes to node/buffer):
    • hex
    • utf8
    • base64
    • raw
    • ucs2 To be added in next PR
    • utf16le To be added in next PR
    • latin1 To be added in next PR
    • binary To be added in next PR
    • ascii To be added in next PR
  • Add typings (js for now)
  • Add jsdoc comments

Note

Should we keep the copyright comments?

@Soremwar Soremwar marked this pull request as draft July 5, 2020 13:17
@Soremwar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Soremwar commented Jul 11, 2020

I might need some orientation on how to convert a function constructor to a class data type.

This was terribly designed, since it expects to get an object with properties that may or may not exist depending on the arguments passed. I don't even think it's a valid argument to say that because JS is so flexible this kind of stuff is valid, this is just plain bad code.

Anyways, I can't seem to find a way to turn this function into a class and keep the syntaxis for its invocation (constructor new syntax), so any help in the direction of this would be appreciated.

Edit: Fixed through the ugliest of ways, but it will do for now. If you have any suggestions about this please let me know

@Soremwar Soremwar changed the title [WIP] Add node/string_decoder and some more Add node/string_decoder and some more Jul 11, 2020
@Soremwar Soremwar marked this pull request as ready for review July 11, 2020 20:18
@bartlomieju
Copy link
Member

@marcosc90 could you review this PR?

@marcosc90
Copy link
Contributor

@marcosc90 could you review this PR?

Yes, I'll review it properly over the weekend @Soremwar

Copy link
Member

@ry ry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - thank you much @Soremwar

@ry ry merged commit fe83999 into denoland:master Jul 14, 2020
@Soremwar Soremwar deleted the std_work branch July 18, 2020 19:05
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2021
caspervonb pushed a commit to caspervonb/deno_std that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2021
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