On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jens Nockert <j...@nockert.se> wrote:
> > On 2014/01/16, at 17:40, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > At the risk of putting too many nails in the board... > > > > The rationale seems to propose that (0).clz() === 32, but the > > hypothetical uint64(0).clz() would return 64. That seems like a bad > > idea though. It's weird for two zero values to get such different > > behavior from the same method. It's weird for floating-point numbers > > to have a clz() method in the first place. > > > > Since these are two different mathematical functions, they should have > > different names: Math.clz32(zero) would be 32 no matter what type of > > zero you pass it; the hypothetical Math.clz64(zero) would of course be > > 64. That way users can focus on the mathematical function being > > computed, rather than runtime types. > > > > Or maybe: flip the function around so that it returns the number of > > bits in the binary expansion of the value: Math.bitlen(15) === 4. This > > is just (32 - CLZ), so it effectively computes the same thing as clz. > > The advantage is that it extends naturally to integers of any size. > > What is Math.bitlen(-1) then? Isn’t this just the same problem as before, > except it happens for negative numbers instead of positive? > Good question. I don't yet have an opinion. But for a baseline, for all the problem cases (fractions, negative numbers, NaN, +/- Infinity, and -0.0), what would .clz have done? -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
