> Honest question: I have yet to see boxed values in practice. Are there any real use cases?
See Modernizr: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/blob/master/feature-detects/video.js#L23 -JDD On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote: > Honest question: I have yet to see boxed values in practice. Are there any > real use cases? > > [[[Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity and typos.]]] > > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > a...@rauschma.de > Home: http://rauschma.de > Blog: http://2ality.com > > On 14.12.2012, at 05:18, Luke Hoban <lu...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > >>> From: Mark S. Miller [mailto:erig...@google.com] > >>> > >>> In that case, the current spec is wrong. The purpose of introducing > Number.isNaN is to repair the >> following bug in the global isNaN: > >>> > >>> isNaN("foo") // returns true > > > > Indeed, as Yusuke noted on the other reply, I referred to the wrong > 'isNaN'. And as you note, the point of the 'Number.isNaN' variant is to > avoid any coercions. > > > > That still leave's JDD's original suggestion to allow > Number.isNaN(Object(NaN)) to return 'true' by checking for either primitive > or boxed Number. It feels a little odd to introduce another kind of > limited coercion into the language, but perhaps it is practically valuable > to not differentiate boxed and unboxed numbers here? > > > > Luke > > > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > es-discuss@mozilla.org > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
