On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> (I am still sad we did not fix indexOf, lastIndexOf, and switch when we > arguably had the chance.) > > > Can you elaborate? We don’t have the chance, any more? Would anything > break (or did, in tests)? > I am not aware of anyone gathering any evidence one way or the other about what breakage this might cause. So it is not necessarily too late. If someone does gather actual evidence that the breakage would be small enough, I could see us reconsider this. But I doubt we would revisit in the absence of such evidence. > How about only letting those methods find NaN, while letting them consider > +0 and -0 equal? > In one way, that would be a big improvement on the status quo: such a rule would still form an equivalence class. (By contrast, === does not form an equivalence class since it is not reflexive.) OTOH, it would make for yet a fourth built-in equality-like test. I don't think the payoff is worth the complexity. > > Axel > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > [email protected] > > home: rauschma.de > twitter: twitter.com/rauschma > blog: 2ality.com > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
