On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Brendan Eich > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> Why is eq being proposed whatever happens with Decimal? >>> >>> Because in the absence of decimal, === is close enough to an >>> "identical" test that one can practically code around the problem >>> cases (NaN and -0) >> >> You're assuming 1.0m === 1.00m must be true. I'm disputing that (see >> exchange with Sam, who may agree). > > I agree that you are disputing that. ;-P > > Less than 10 hours ago, ISTR you were suggesting the opposite. > "there's a weak case for false"...
I acknowledged that and then went on to shoot it down, you're right. But really, I'm wondering why it is important to have Object.eq if 1.0m === 1.00m. Without Object.hashcode. The weak case I mentioned would not need Object.eq. The strong case I favored left users reaching for compareTotal or stringification and ===. Either way I do not see the necessity of eq. Sorry, I misstated your position (I think!). What's your position, for sure? > On Thursday, ISTR Mark arguing that "correspond to the same point on > the real number line" was close enough to an "identical" test. > > I think I need to sit down now, I'm getting dizzy. :-) The way to settle this is to give rationales for all the moving parts, so we can pin some down and make them stop moving. /be _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
