-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What is the current state of the result of typeof on decimals, was there consensus on this? I hope we will be using typeof 1.1m -> "number". For a little bit of emperical evidence, I went through Dojo's codebase and their are numerous places that we would probably want to alter our code to include additional checks for "decimal" if typeof 1.1m -> "decimal", whereas if "number" we would probably leave virtually everything intact in regards to number handling with consideration for decimals. Thanks, Kris
Brendan Eich wrote: > Sam's mail cited below has gone without a reply for over a month. > Decimal is surely not a high priority, but this message deserves > some kind of response or we'll have to reconstruct the state of the > argument later, at probably higher cost. > > I was not at the Redmond meeting, but I would like to take Sam's > word that the "cohort/toString" issue was settled there. I heard > from Rob Sayre something to this effect. > > But in case we don't have consensus, could any of you guys state > the problem for the benefit of everyone on this list? Sorry if this > seems redundant. It will help, I'm convinced (compared to no > responses and likely differing views of what the problem is, or > what the consensus was, followed months later by even more painful > reconstruction of the state of the argument). > > The wrapper vs. primitive issue remains, I believe everyone agrees. > > > /be > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> 2008/12/4 Brendan Eich <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Sam pointed that out too, and directed everyone to his >>> test-implementation results page: >>> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/09/20/estest.html Indeed >>> we still have an open issue there ignoring the wrapper one: >>> >>> [Sam wrote:] I think the only major outstanding semantic issue >>> was wrapper objects; apart from that, the devil was in the >>> detail of spec wording.[End Sam] >>> >>> No, the cohort/toString issue remains too (at least). >> >> With a longer schedule, I would like to revisit that; but as of >> Redmond, we had consensus on what that would look like in the >> context of a 3.1 edition. >> >> From where I sit, I find myself in the frankly surreal position >> that we are in early December, and there are no known issues of >> consensus, though I respect that David-Sarah claims that there is >> one on wrappers, and I await his providing of more detail. >> >>> /be >> >> - Sam Ruby > > _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing > list [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkln1acACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAzSOwCbBbcYMmHxg2emCBgjrca9ZDjq 3M4An16zI6nUjssjQ/q3ecnH84aomA5K =nbmt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
