Subsumed by self.structuredClone?

[littledan]

If HTML adds a structuredClone method, would it still make sense to expose an ArrayBuffer.transfer operation? It seems that you could use structuredClone for very similar purposes, though it's only available on the web. cc @surma

[domenic]

I think there's value in saying what you mean, and exposing the appropriate low-level primitives.

Having to use

const transferred = structuredClone(arrayBuffer, [arrayBuffer]);

to convey the semantic of "transfer this array buffer" is pretty opaque.

And, tying up the low-level ability to transfer array buffers inside the higher-level, recursive-object-graph-crawling, multi-function structured cloning algorithm is pretty silly. I'd rather move toward high-level features like structured clone be implementable in JavaScript, by making it possible to transfer individual transferables, instead of inverting things and using structured clone to get at low-level functionality.

[domenic]

Withdrawing the proposal after all, in favor of self.structuredClone() and https://github.com/tc39/proposal-resizablearraybuffer