Honest question: I have yet to see boxed values in practice. Are there any real use cases?
[[[Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity and typos.]]] Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de Home: http://rauschma.de Blog: http://2ality.com On 14.12.2012, at 05:18, Luke Hoban <lu...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> From: Mark S. Miller [mailto:erig...@google.com] >>> >>> In that case, the current spec is wrong. The purpose of introducing >>> Number.isNaN is to repair the >> following bug in the global isNaN: >>> >>> isNaN("foo") // returns true > > Indeed, as Yusuke noted on the other reply, I referred to the wrong 'isNaN'. > And as you note, the point of the 'Number.isNaN' variant is to avoid any > coercions. > > That still leave's JDD's original suggestion to allow > Number.isNaN(Object(NaN)) to return 'true' by checking for either primitive > or boxed Number. It feels a little odd to introduce another kind of limited > coercion into the language, but perhaps it is practically valuable to not > differentiate boxed and unboxed numbers here? > > Luke > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
