On Jul 8, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> And likewise for Function.create and RegExp.create. Boolean, Number, String, >> and Date get nothing :-P. > > Actually in the <| proposal I define it to work with boolean, number, and > string literals on the LHS. Sorta useless but I included them so the > complete set of literals was covered. So it really is only Date that didn't > get invited to the party.
For ES4 we entertained date literals based ISO 8601 "T" literals. Couldn't justify 'em, the use-cases were all unlikely hardcodings. >> We have a somewhat-troubled proposal in Harmony to make Function.create an >> alternative Function constructor that takes a leading name parameter, and >> then parameters and body string parameters. But perhaps that could be >> renamed Function.createNamed. > > I think that create methods on Constructors should generally follow the > argument pattern of Object.create. Things that don't should get a different > name. Agreed. >> The extrapolated Gregorian calendar's range in milliseconds was chosen >> carefully to fit in an IEEE 754 double without loss of precision. >> >> Real implementations decode the double into commonly-accessed fields that >> would have to track any updates to the milliseconds since (negative for >> before) the epoch. > > Seems like this could be an invisible implementation detail. Certainly, it is invisible. > An it is really worth the effort. How often does anybody set Date components > in a situation that is so time critical that this would matter. (any > shouldn't dates be immutable...oh well) SunSpider, cough. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
