only for iteration would you be concerned with the casting; almost always for strings and ops like 'indexOf()'.
On Feb 4, 11:06 am, Angus Croll <anguscr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually you can just say > > (0).toFixed(2); > > Primitives get temporarily coerced to their object wrappers when faced > with attribute or function calls. I've never yet had to use new > Number() but there may yet be a scenario > > On Feb 4, 7:51 am, jemptymethod <jemptymet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm setting ExtJS form values in one of their ubiquitous config > > objects based on JSON data from an Ajax call. > > > For currency fields I am calling "toFixed(2)" on the numbers such as: > > > jsonObj.shippingAndHandling.toFixed(2) > > jsonObj.totalDueToday.toFixed(2) > > > Etcetera0 > > > But I have a requirement to default a particular field to 0.00 and > > when I specify 0.00 as the value in the config object, it shows up as > > 0 in the UI > > > As a work around instead of trying to specify 0.00 I can pass the > > following and it successfully renders 0.00 in the UI > > > (new Number(0)).toFixed(2) > > > Am wondering what the "mentors" (and anybody else who wants to weigh > > in ;) think of this as possibly being a useful use case for using one > > Javascript's primitive object wrappers. By the way, specifying the > > string '0.00' in the config would surely work if the form field was an > > Ext.form.TextField but possibly not if an Ext.form.NumberField? -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
