24430 2014-01-28 18:43:38 +0000 Make BigInteger signed or rename it 2014-01-28 20:24:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Web Cryptography Web Cryptography API Document unspecified All All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 info sleevi watsonm oldest_to_newest 99330 0 info 2014-01-28 18:43:38 +0000 All the Typed Arrays use a "U", when dealing with unsigned integers. So please make "BigInteger" signed or rename it to "BigUInteger", some day we might need signed BigIntegers 99335 1 sleevi 2014-01-28 19:07:42 +0000 BigInteger is not a Typed Array of Big Integers. It is a single Big Integer. The Typed Arrays spec you referenced is for dealing with _arrays_ of integers of a particular type. That is, UInt8_Array_ 99336 2 watsonm 2014-01-28 19:20:49 +0000 Ryan - I'm reopening this, not because I think we should make any change, but just because your answer doesn't address the question Franz is asking. The point is that it is common, where TypedArray specifies the type of the array elements and elsewhere to put a 'U' in front of Integer to indicate unsigned. But the main question is whether our type should in fact be a Signed Integer, since we might need those in future. If we keep with unsigned, then the question is whether to rename it ? If we keep with unsigned and the existing name, then we *will* have a problem when we later want to introduce a signed big integer - what will we call it BigSInteger ? I wouldn't be opposed to renaming to UnsignedBigInteger, since I am never afraid of spending letters... 99345 3 sleevi 2014-01-28 20:19:30 +0000 Closing this again, as no action is needed. BigInteger is a typedef, not an interface type. As such, it is purely syntactic sugar. A future version of the WebCrypto API could introduce further distinction by introducing a typedef for "BigInt" and "BigUInt", and it would be 100% backwards compatible as long as the API was updated to rename all occurrences of "BigInteger" with "BigUInt" See http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-typedefs As such, the potential future concern of an additional type does not need to be addressed until we have such a need, and can be done so in a way that is fully API compatible. 99346 4 watsonm 2014-01-28 20:24:56 +0000 Ok, that works for me.