Lars is correct. If you can declare decimal literals, that is enough to get you into decimal arithmetic. The various automatic coercions will do the rest, though as he said, type annotations could reduce the scope of errors. You would also need some static methods on decimal like exp and log, since the ones on Number expect doubles.
Dick -----Original Message----- From: Lars Hansen Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:54 PM To: Peter Hall; Dick Sweet Cc: Brendan Eich; es4-discuss Discuss; TC39; Mike Cowlishaw Subject: RE: Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 proposal space -- decimal There's no such rule in ES4. There are implicit conversions among primitive number types, and between primitive types and wrapper types, and those kick in when storing something in an annotated location. So these two programs are different, and both are correct: var s = "foo" var t = 10.5 and var s : String = "foo" var t : int = 10.5 (Decimal makes sense without any type annotations, but annotations probably cause coercions to decimal to happen more often and thus reduce the scope for error. I assume this is what Dick meant. But 1m would be a decimal value 1, and 1m/10 would convert 10 to decimal before dividing -- no annotations involved.) --lars > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Hall > Sent: 27. februar 2008 22:29 > To: Dick Sweet > Cc: Brendan Eich; es4-discuss Discuss; TC39; Mike Cowlishaw > Subject: Re: Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 > proposal space -- decimal > > OK. Decimal type just makes sense to me. And I think this is > one case where I think you can break "the rule" that says > correct type annotations do not affect the program. > > Peter > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Dick Sweet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A couple of comments from the fellow who did the trial > implementation > > of decimal in Tamarin. > > > > It would be pretty easy to have decimal if you have to explicitly > > declare variables of that type and need to explicitly > denote literals > > that you want to be decimal with the "m" suffix. Such denotation > > would not be necessary for literals without fractional > parts, unless > > they are beyond the range of integer representation within > a double. > > Promotion of arithmetic to decimal in mixed situations > isn't that hard to do. > > > > Dick > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:58 AM > > To: Peter Hall > > Cc: es4-discuss Discuss; TC39; Mike Cowlishaw > > Subject: Re: Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 > proposal space > > -- decimal > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > > > First, nothing's "ruled out" -- you're asking the wrong > guy if you > > > want Adobe's position, but see Lars's reply to Mike Cowlishaw: > > > decimal as a type without any implicit literal/operators > mode is > > > still possible, > > > > I should have written "without generic operator methods" > -- ES4 could > > still have a decimal type and built-in operators and > literal support, > > but no modal defaulting (no "big red switch"). > > > > /be > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Es4-discuss mailing list > Es4-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
