On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Luke Hoban <[email protected]> wrote: > More discussion on this here: > https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309. CC Roger Andrews who had > argued there that this should be 2- and 3- arguments only.
I can't follow the argument chain; it's clear there was more discussion going on privately. In <https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c5> Roger argues that it would be fine to do variadic hypot. In <https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c8> Jens lightly objects, but only because of the name. (He later agrees that it doesn't make sense to make a new 3-arg hypot function just because of naming unease.) Then in <https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309#c15> Roger suddenly reverses, and documents the consensus as being just 2/3-arg hypot. Like Brendan, I'm confused about what the "over-complicated issues with vector 2-norms" he cites in that comment are supposed to be. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
