It seems like we should continue to have the compiler call Language._int()
and fix the implementation. Right now _int() just does this:
static public function _int(value:Number):Number
{
return value >> 0;
}
Which I think is an attempt to truncate the Number. Does JS parseInt
handle non-Strings? Otherwise _int() would probably need some typeof
tests to determine whether to truncate or call parseint.
-Alex
On 5/17/16, 7:53 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you use 10 as the radix, you're fine. The strange behavior is when you
>omit the radix because some browsers try to be smart and detect things
>like
>a leading 0 as an octal number.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Tom Chiverton <t...@extravision.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I think parseInt() in JS has really odd behaviour and is best avoided.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 17 May 2016 07:46:07 BST, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >I pushed changes for just the "x as int" case.
>> >
>> >On 5/16/16, 12:30 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I assume int() will cross-compile to parseInt()?
>> >
>> >Currently the compiler calls Language._int(), but the code in there
>> >doesn't call parseInt. Should it?
>> >
>> >-Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >______________________________________________________________________
>> >This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>> >service.
>> >For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> >______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> --
>> Tom Chiverton
>> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
