Some existing widely deployed ARM ECMAScript implementations apparently are returning 0 as Number.MIN_Value because their (non-conformant) implementations can't represent the required value. This paragraph has one specific purpose, it tells such implementations what they need to return instead and that it isn't 0.
It isn't the intent of the paragraph to imply that that full 754 binary 64-bit compliance isn't still required required for Ecma-262 conformance. Why did you draw that implication? Do you have any wording changes that you think would make it clearer? Perhaps this paragraph should be a non-normative note? Allen On May 8, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Jens Nockert wrote: > There is a spelling mistake in the following section of the new draft (Page > 215) >> clarification of Number.MIN_Value for Arm processors (that don;t support >> denormalized numbers) > It should reference IEEE 754, not IEEE 764. > > Also, this new section changes the semantics of arithmetic and numbers in > Javascript, is this actually the intention? > > It is correct that a lot of processors do not implement denormals in > hardware, but is it worth breaking backwards compatibility over? It also > seems to be in contradiction with 8.5 (The Number Type), which defines which > values a Number is allowed to have. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
