There's no particular reason not to do something like that, except:
1. It is not usable (see
http://www.jroller.com/cpurdy/entry/the_seven_habits_of_highly1%23comment-1130764636000).
2. Math is becoming a dumping ground, as noted up-thread.
3. Polyfillability is not important if old code can hand-code for better
perf, and all evidence is that it can.
Hacking JS into an uglier state for short-term illusory wins, not a good
plan!
/be
Ingvar Stepanyan <mailto:[email protected]>
November 4, 2013 1:10 AM
Why can’t we do Uint64 class inside Math namespace to be used for all
the 64-bit arithmetic operations?
Like:
var x = Math.Uint64(2);
var y = Math.Uint64.fromString(“0x12345678abcdef01”);
var z = x.mul(y); // or Math.Uint64.mul(x, y)
var z_hi = z.hi; // highest 32-bit part
var z_lo = z.lo; // lowest 32-bit part
var z_val = Number(z); // or z.valueOf(), returns IEEE.754-compatible
float64 number when possible (with highest possible precision, so no
loss up to +-2^52)
Such syntax looks not so “low-level” for JS devs, should be easily
polyfilled by current engines and optimized by new ones.
Regards,
Ingvar Stepanyan.
_______________________________________________
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
