> Wat? This seems to be a good reason to allow `Object(NaN)` and use the > NumberWrapper brand as it cannot be tested via the normal way of > `myNaN !== myNaN`.
But `myNaN === myNaN` is true if `myNaN = Object(NaN)`. Testing against the object is different. Nothing breaks. var myNaN = Object(NaN); [ 1, 3, myNaN ].indexOf(myNaN); // => 2 Works as expected. The only problem which occurs is when you're working with primitive NaN, in which case the only existing good ways to test for it are `x !== x` and `typeof x == 'number' && isNaN(x)`. The purpose of `Number.isNaN` is to provide a way to test this case which is easier to read and understand. Note that if `x = Object(NaN)` both of these tests fail. Nathan _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
