Note that "value object" proposal does _not_ address int64.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Waldemar Horwat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/02/2014 07:32 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote: > >> I just wanted to let people on es-discuss know about two of my recent >> blog posts concerning typed objects. The first is a kind of status >> report: >> >> http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/04/01/ >> typed-objects-status-report/ >> >> and the second details some (preliminary) thoughts on how one could >> build on typed objects to support user-defined value types: >> >> http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/04/01/ >> value-types-in-javascript/ >> > > We've been tossing things like this around for a while. I'd personally > love to have some notion of value types along with int64 and friends (after > having the proposals out for 15 years). Note that these generally got > bogged down on one of four issues: > > - Handling of NaN's and ±0 > - Direction of binary operator coercion (if x is an int64, is x+1 an int64 > or a regular double Number? What about x+0.5?) > - Built-in int64 vs. providing a library that allows folks to implement > int64 (whichever one was proposed, folks wanted the other one) > - Cross-realm behavior > > Waldemar > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
