Here’s the output of parseInt with different arguments:
parseInt({foo:0},10));//NaN
parseInt(10.7,10);////10
parseInt("10.7",10);////10
parseInt("7",10);//7
So, we should probably do something like:
var val:Number = parseInt(value,10);
return isNaN(val) ? 0 : val;
What about uint? Something like this?
var val:Number = parseInt(value,10);
return isNaN(val) ? 0 : Math.abs(val);
On May 17, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems like we should continue to have the compiler call Language._int()
> and fix the implementation. Right now _int() just does this:
>
> static public function _int(value:Number):Number
> {
> return value >> 0;
> }
>
> Which I think is an attempt to truncate the Number. Does JS parseInt
> handle non-Strings? Otherwise _int() would probably need some typeof
> tests to determine whether to truncate or call parseint.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
> On 5/17/16, 7:53 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you use 10 as the radix, you're fine. The strange behavior is when you
>> omit the radix because some browsers try to be smart and detect things
>> like
>> a leading 0 as an octal number.
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Tom Chiverton <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think parseInt() in JS has really odd behaviour and is best avoided.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2016 07:46:07 BST, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I pushed changes for just the "x as int" case.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/16/16, 12:30 PM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I assume int() will cross-compile to parseInt()?
>>>>
>>>> Currently the compiler calls Language._int(), but the code in there
>>>> doesn't call parseInt. Should it?
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Chiverton
>>> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
>
