On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Domenic Denicola <dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > While I sympathize with the desire to make "integer" mean "mathematical > integer," I don't think it's going to work out very well. Nobody actually > cares about such functions, and you of course have the WATs of > > ```js > Number.isInteger(9007199254740992.5) === true > ``` > > since the runtime couldn't distinguish this from `9007199254740992`.
This is what I was trying to point out as a ridiculous possibility in Jeff's idea, except he claimed it's what he actually wanted. ;_; > In practice all this ends up doing is forcing our currently-proposed useful > functions/constants to have an "exact"/"EXACT" inserted into them. > > I think it would be easier just to accept that "integer" in JS does not mean > "mathematical integer" but instead means "unambiguously representable > integer," since that is operationally the useful definition. Yes. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
