On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
Two questions on new Number APIs:
1) Is it intentional that clz is on Number.prototype instead of Number? Why?
Generally, operations that operate upon a value of a specific type are
expressed as instance methods. We see this all the time
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com]
On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
Two questions on new Number APIs:
1) Is it intentional that clz is on Number.prototype instead of Number? Why?
I think there is a stronger case to me made for Math.clz(number).
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com]
On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
Two questions on new Number APIs:
1) Is it intentional that clz is on Number.prototype instead of Number?
Why?
On Jul 12, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com]
2) Is it intentional that Number.toInteger(Infinity) returns true?
Huh? How's that?
Number.toInteger
On Jul 12, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com]
On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
Two questions on new Number APIs:
1) Is it intentional that clz is on Number.prototype instead of Number?
Why?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
No. Even if toInteger meant no fractional component, I would still expect
it only to return true if there is some specific mathematical integer that
the JS number can be said to exactly represent. For the same reason, I
On Jul 12, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
No. Even if toInteger meant no fractional component, I would still expect
it only to return true if there is some specific mathematical integer that
the JS number can be said to exactly represent. For the same reason, I
On Jul 12, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
No. Even if toInteger meant no fractional component, I would still expect
it only to return true if there is some specific mathematical integer that
the JS number
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
On Jul 12, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
No. Even if toInteger meant no fractional component, I would still expect
it only to
On Jul 12, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
In other words you want to define Number.isInteger to return true only if
On 07/12/2013 10:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
And, because of what we discussed in the recent thread...
Number.isInteger(Math.pow(2,53)-1) == true
Number.isInteger(Math.pow(2,53)) == false
I need to comment in the other thread again and push back against what people
have said there, but
On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
And, because of what we discussed in the recent thread...
Number.isInteger(Math.pow(2,53)-1) == true
Number.isInteger(Math.pow(2,53)) == false
I need to comment in the other thread again and
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
And, because of what we discussed in the recent thread...
Number.isInteger(Math.pow(2,53)-1) == true
Number.isInteger(Math.pow(2,53)) == false
I need to comment in the other
On 07/12/2013 04:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
are you suggesting that if we want such an function, it should be named
something else, such as isExactInteger, isPreciseInteger,
isUnambiguousInteger, etc?
Possibly, but I don't think so. Whether a value is exact or precise is a
function
On 07/12/2013 04:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If you don't agree with that reasoning, then I suppose you'd argue
that *all* numbers 2^53 should return true, since they're all forced
into being represented as integers?
All numbers = 2**53 except Infinity, yes. I think isInteger implies the
On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 07/12/2013 04:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
are you suggesting that if we want such an function, it should be named
something else, such as isExactInteger, isPreciseInteger,
isUnambiguousInteger, etc?
Possibly, but I don't think so.
On 13/07/2013, at 01:24, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 07/12/2013 04:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If you don't agree with that reasoning, then I suppose you'd argue
that *all* numbers 2^53 should return true, since they're all forced
into being represented as integers?
All numbers = 2**53 except
On 07/12/2013 04:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
So the other thread was a discussion concerning the appropriate value of
Number.MAX_INTEGER. Do you think it should be 2^53-1, or 2^53, or the same
thing as Math..MAX_VALUE.
Number.MAX_INTEGER should be 2**53. People who want 2**53 - 1 (and
On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 07/12/2013 04:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
So the other thread was a discussion concerning the appropriate value of
Number.MAX_INTEGER. Do you think it should be 2^53-1, or 2^53, or the same
thing as Math..MAX_VALUE.
On 07/12/2013 04:56 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
So you seem to be saying that that
Number.isInteger(MAX_VALUE) should be true, but that Number.MAX_VALUE
Number.MAX_INTEGER is also true because for isInteger you using the
mathematical definition of Integer but for MAX_INTEGER you are
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
On 07/12/2013 06:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
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
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 07/12/2013 06:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
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
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com]
Exactly, which is why we can only *accurately* answer for numbers = 2^53-1.
Probably a horrible idea in practice, but I feel like the correct answer here
is `throw`ing outside that range. It's like asking is Tab's second head blonde
or
Two questions on new Number APIs:
1) Is it intentional that clz is on Number.prototype instead of Number? Why?
2) Is it intentional that Number.toInteger(Infinity) returns true?
Luke
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
25 matches
Mail list logo
