Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > You probably meant to send this to the list.
Oops. Resending. Thanks! > - Maciej > > On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:31 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote: >>>>>>> and in particular they don't call it on the index in an array >>>>>>> indexing >>>>>>> operation. >>>>>> This is true. But that in itself is not the problem. Currently, >>>>>> should a >>>>>> programmer write: >>>>>> >>>>>> a[1]="first" >>>>>> a[1.000]="second" >>>>>> >>>>>> it's assumed that the second case was an accidental typo and they >>>>>> really >>>>>> did not mean to type the extra '.000'. The problem occurs at >>>>>> that point, >>>>>> on the conversion from a decimal (ASCII/Unicode/whatever) string >>>>>> in the >>>>>> program to an internal representation. When the internal >>>>>> representation >>>>>> cannot preserve the distinction (as with binary doubles) there's >>>>>> not much >>>>>> that can be done about it. But a decimal internal representation >>>>>> can >>>>>> preserve the distinction, and so it should - 1m and 1.000m differ >>>>>> in the >>>>>> same was a "1" and "1.000". They are distinguishable, but when >>>>>> interpreted as a number, they are considered equal. >>>>> I'm not sure what you are getting at. a[1] and a[1.000] refer to >>>>> the same property in ECMAScript, but a[1m] and a[1.000m] would >>>>> not. Are you saying this isn't a problem? >>>>> I would agree with Waldermar that it is a serious problem. Not so >>>>> much for literals as for values that end up with varying numbers >>>>> of trailing zeroes depending on how they were computed, even >>>>> though they are numerically the same. Certainly it seems it would >>>>> make arrays unusable for someone trying to use decimal numbers only. >>>> >>>> "broken", "unusable". Given superlatives such as these, one would >>>> think that code which would change in behavior would be abundant, >>>> and readily identified. >>> >>> I would not expect there to be a wide body of existing code using the >>> decimal extension to ECMAScript, let alone trying to use it for all >>> browsers. Such code would not work at all in today's browsers, and has >>> probably been written by specialist experts, so I am not sure studying >>> it would show anything interesting. >> >> My apologies. That wasn't the question I was intending. >> >> Can you identify code that today depends on numeric binary 64 floating >> point which makes use of operations such as unrounded division and >> depends on trailing zeros being truncated to compute array indexes? >> >> I would think that such code would be more affected by factors such as >> the increased precision and the fact that 1.2-1.1 produces >> 0.09999999999999987 than on the presence or absence of any trailing >> zeros. >> >> But given the continued use of words such as "broken" and "unusable", >> I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious. >> >>> Regards, >>> Maciej >> >> - Sam Ruby > > _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list Es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
