Hi Anders, you are correct. The rfc as stated is incorrect. The EcmaScript spec is correct.
2**53 is indeed exactly representable, which is what the rfc is about. But 2**53 is not safe, which what the ecmascript spec is about. On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Anders Rundgren < [email protected]> wrote: > On 2018-05-06 19:57, Logan Smyth wrote: > <snip> > >> I think the best source of truth is likely the spec: >> https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/8.0/#sec-number. >> max_safe_integer which states >> >> The value of Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER is the largest integer n such that n >> and n + 1 are both exactly representable as a Number value. >> > > Right, this is essentially what I'm claiming; Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER + 1 > is a valid (exact) integer which means that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf > c7493#section-2.2 is incorrect. > > Anders > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
