Brendan Eich wrote: > On Sep 3, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> If typeof(0m) is "number", then !0m should be true. >> If typeof(0m) is "object", then !0m should be false. >> If typeof(0m) is "decimal", then we are free to decide what !0m should >> be. >> >> My preference is for typeof(0m) to be "decimal" and for !0m to be true. > > That's my preference now too, but based on more than aesthetics.
Does that mean that the following need to be revisited? http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/08/29/estest.html#s11.4.3 http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/08/29/estest.html#s11.8.6 In particular, does that imply the need for a wrapper class? First, here's existing behavior: js> 1 instanceof Number false js> Number(1) instanceof Number false js> new Number(1) instanceof Number true And those results correspond to: js> typeof 0 number js> typeof Number(1) number js> typeof new Number(1) object So, what should the following return (where I've filled in the few cases where I think the answer is obvious): js> 1m instanceof Decimal ??? js> Decimal(1m) instanceof Decimal ??? js> new Decimal(1m) instanceof Decimal true And the corresponding typeof results: js> typeof 1m decimal js> typeof Decimal(1m) decimal js> typeof new Decimal(1) ??? Whatever the consensus is, I'll update my SpiderMonkey branch to match and then will post the updated test results. - Sam Ruby _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list Es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
