On Feb 8, 8:19 am, RobG <rg...@iinet.net.au> wrote: [...] > It can hardly be called a bug when it does what the documentation says > it does (I think "works as designed" is the polite response). The > function itself is a bit pointless though, as are similar functions > like isNumber, e.g.
It's not pointless, but the scope of its use is indeed pretty narrow. Since neither `instanceof` operator nor `constructor` value check can not be relied upon when working with multiple contexts (frames), `Object.isString` is here to "take care" of it. AFAIK, ES committee is planning to finally document ECMA behavior in context of multiple global objects. > > Object.isNumber(NaN); // true Should it return `false`? 4.3.23 (NaN) says that "... This value is a member of the Number type.". Also, `typeof NaN == "number"`, NaN's `constructor` is `Number`, its [[Class]] is "Number" and it's [[Prototype]] references `Number.prototype`? Should we return `false` for "practical" reasons? And what should `Object.isNumber` return for +/-Inifinity? Adding `isFinite` to `isNumber` would be able to take care of both - `NaN` and `Infinity` cases. -- kangax --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
