NaN is already part of the ECMAScript language. There is an underlying Number representation of Date, but I'll grant you it's not a perfect fit as there are no Date literals. Returning null is another option, I suppose, but one that's likely to create even more problems.
-Adam
John Cowan
<[email protected]>
To
06/10/2009 11:21 Adam Peller/Cambridge/i...@ibmus
AM cc
Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Garrett
Smith <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject
Re: Date.prototype.toISOString and
Invalid Date
Adam Peller scripsit:
> I don't feel strongly on this, but it does strike me as odd that
> a function intended to avoid culturally-sensitive output would use
> an English phrase. I'd lean towards IE/Opera, using notation from
> ECMAScript that is equally cryptic to all cultures :-) At least that
> would be consistent with Number.toString() and would reinforce the fact
> that there are other methods to produce strings in the user's locale.
In fact, "NaN" is an abbreviation of an English phrase, namely "not
a number". But neither dates nor date strings are numbers. What say
you to "NaD"?
--
John Cowan [email protected]
At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Perform swift circular ambulation,
With loud and high-pitched ululation.
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: pic09562.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
