FWIW Valuable venue and feedback. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:07 PM Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The same way that Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts does. >> > > Intl.NumberFormat is used for localized string formatting. Even the > numeric parts that `formatToParts()` returns are still represented as > strings, and are not expressly intended as inputs for downstream > mathematical operations. Inasmuch as it does not fix, improve upon, or > otherwise specifically relate to mathematical operations (*especially* > with respect to floating point considerations), I cannot see how this > proposal does, either. > > Though takes the concept one step further by *spreading* each digit to an >> array. If the number has a decimal, the decimal portion is set at a single >> element of an array. If the decimal begins with a 0, continue until the >> first non-zero number is reached, include that number in the decimal >> portion within the array, and the remainder of the decimal portion is >> spread to remainder of array elements >> > > That is *very* specific behavior that, as we still don't understand your > motivation, we cannot even begin to appreciate. *Why* is that > functionality something that you or developers in general might want? Why, > for example, would we only care about direct access to the digit in the > hundredths place when it's *not* a part of this very specific sequence? > > The proposal improves what is broken by not returning broken results >> relevant to decimal numbers. > > > It does not. This is exactly why I attempted to address some potential > confusion around Floats before. > > var n = numberToArray(0.3) // [0, 0.3] > arrayToNumber(n); // 0.3 > > That resulting 0.3 is "broken" in the exact same sense as it was when it > was fed into the transformation. > > The proposal allows users to get and set any portion of a number using >> indexes of an array, which can then be converted back to a number. > > > It does not. It allows getting and setting portions of numbers at an index > in an array so long as that position doesn't belong to an (arbitrarily?) > specified sequence of one or more zeros and a trailing non-zero digit. > > You might as well state that Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts >> does not have any use. >> > > Of course it has use. Just not as framed or cited within the context of > this proposal. > > The proposal is asking you people who claim to be specification authors to >> _name_ each element of the resulting array, for consistency, again, the >> example. > > > Inasmuch as we don't understand the reasoning behind how your proposal > partitions the input value, providing a coherent name for those parts is a > non-starter. Again, why does your proposal treat *some* zeros different > from non-zero digits in the same position, or different from previous or > subsequent zeros encountered within the number? > > I mean, this proposal is as DOA as any I've ever encountered on here, but > that question is haunting me! > > Otherwise, you have only offered standard western academic conjecture, >> which can be set aside where an individual is not beholden to or reliant on >> western academic conjecture to proceed with anything they decide to. > > > As evidenced by my persistence in this thread, I don't count myself among > them, but a significant share of the best minds in JavaScript are on this > mailing list, and it seems that not a single person can make sense of this > proposal. As we are on the topic of math, I would urge you to consider the > common denominator, and it isn't "western academic conjecture"(??!). > > And with that, I think I had better let this rest. > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM guest271314 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That's the premise that I'm challenging. Why is it simpler, and how does >>> it, *in any appreciable way*, improve upon whatever you're asserting is >>> "broken"? >> >> >> The same way that Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts does. Though >> takes the concept one step further by *spreading* each digit to an >> array. If the number has a decimal, the decimal portion is set at a single >> element of an array. If the decimal begins with a 0, continue until the >> first non-zero number is reached, include that number in the decimal >> portion within the array, and the remainder of the decimal portion is >> spread to remainder of array elements >> >> Example: >> >> var n = numberToArray(100.00015); // [1, 0, 0, 0.0001, 5] >> arrayToNumber(n); // 100.00015 >> >> The proposal improves what is broken by not returning broken results >> relevant to decimal numbers. The proposal allows users to get and set any >> portion of a number using indexes of an array, which can then be converted >> back to a number. >> >> If you are failing to interpret that as useful, that is your own issue. >> You might as well state that Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts does >> not have any use. And further, JavaScript number implementation is fine >> just the way that it is currently implemented, unless *you *decide that >> any proposal is useful. >> >> The array format is a simple data structure. Can be converted to JSON; >> can be extended to include a description of each digit that is a user gets >> or sets; e.g., >> >> n[0].description // {digit: 1, place: 'hundreds', decimalSibling: >> true, ...etc.} >> >> With respect, your test cases confuse the issue more than they clarify. >>> Questions on how you'd use this structure aside (which are still >>> important), your test cases *don't actually produce a structure in >>> which digits are accessible by nth index* (e.g., the 0-grouping >>> behavior). >> >> >> Not sure what you mean? What are you confused about relevant to the test >> cases? The code at the OP includes 1) the original proof of concept; 2) >> code by Stack Overflow user Shidersz >> <https://stackoverflow.com/users/10366495/shidersz> which fixed two bugs >> in the original code. Yes, the code at the OP does produce the expected >> result. >> >> You are misconstruing the proposal. The code already returns the expected >> result. Do not ask for approval for anything. Just do and let the aftermath >> settle to its own level. >> >> The proposal is asking you people who claim to be specification authors >> to _name_ each element of the resulting array, for consistency, again, the >> example >> >> var n = numberToArray(100.00015); // [1, 0, 0, 0.0001, 5] >> >> as an array users obviously do not have additional data about the values >> in the array. What do you call the 0 at index 1? What do you call the 5 at >> index 4? >> >> Before incorporating the output into an object, similar to >> Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts - and including the original >> array in the object, or Map - am asking for standardization of the names of >> each digit in a _spread_ number in an array. >> >> Number to array, array to number is just the first part of the procedure. >> The part relevant to actually _naming_ the parts, for disambiguation, is >> what propose here. If you are not interested, that is fine. Do not >> necessarily need you to do anything. Will do for self as have and continue >> to do independently, and name the discrete portions of the number >> arbitrarily, without your input. >> >> Again, if you do not gather that this proposal is similar to and extends >> the functionality of Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts, perhaps you >> should try to use that feature, note that "integer" and "fraction" and >> "minusSign" are possible return values at output, then lobby for the >> feature to be removed from Ecma specification, for the same reasons that >> you are citing at this proposal, which would then make your >> >> premise that I'm challenging >> >> >> consistent. Otherwise, you have only offered standard western academic >> conjecture, which can be set aside where an individual is not beholden to >> or reliant on western academic conjecture to proceed with anything they >> decide to. >> >> With respect, >> >> >> "respect" is irrelevant to the proposal. Do not need or care about what >> you consider "respect". You cannot offend this user. >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The proposal seeks to standardize the naming conventions of number to >>>> array and array to number, including decimals. >>> >>> >>> You're describing the hammer. When we ask for the motivation for your >>> proposal, we're trying to understand *what you want to do with the >>> hammer*, and that needs to be something more generalized than >>> programmatically recreating an interesting number sequence (and more >>> explicitly stated than whatever we are to infer from your test cases). >>> >>> In our repeated attempts to suss that out, this seems to be your >>> clearest description: >>> >>> It is simpler to have the ability to add, subtract, divide, or otherwise >>>> manipulate individual nth indexes of an integer or decimal represented as >>>> an array of integers potentially containing one decimal than trying to >>>> perform the same mathematical operations on a number in JavaScript >>>> (essentially broken in JavaScript due to the floating-point number issues). >>> >>> >>> That's the premise that I'm challenging. Why is it simpler, and how does >>> it, *in any appreciable way*, improve upon whatever you're asserting is >>> "broken"? As specified by your proposal, your input and output parameters >>> are Floats, which means that the precision limitations of floating point >>> numbers remain unaddressed. >>> >>> All of the test cases used at the code which fixed the bugs in the proof >>>> of concept at the original post output the expected result. >>> >>> >>> With respect, your test cases confuse the issue more than they clarify. >>> Questions on how you'd use this structure aside (which are still >>> important), your test cases *don't actually produce a structure in >>> which digits are accessible by nth index* (e.g., the 0-grouping >>> behavior). >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:13 AM guest271314 <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> With respect, it's still not clear how you want to interact with the >>>>> array of values once you've destructured a Float into your array format. >>>> >>>> If all you have is an array of single-digit numbers that represent the >>>>> values in the tenths/hundredths/etc. positions of the source number, how >>>>> does this actually circumvent the challenges of representing Decimal >>>>> values >>>>> that aren't exactly representable as a Float? >>>> >>>> >>>> It is not clear how your examples of adding specific values in >>>> JavaScript are relevant to the proposal. >>>> >>>> All of the test cases used at the code which fixed the bugs in the >>>> proof of concept at the original post output the expected result. >>>> >>>> If you have more test cases, number or decimal, to suggest for input >>>> relevant to the code at the original proposal, number to array, array to >>>> number, kindly post those tests cases listing input and expected output. >>>> >>>> The proposal does not seek to solve all JavaScript number issues. >>>> >>>> The proposal seeks to standardize the naming conventions of number to >>>> array and array to number, including decimals. An array is the simplest >>>> form of structured output. An object of key, value pairs (similar to >>>> Intl.NumberFormat, with JavaScript numbers instead of strings) can also be >>>> utilized for each of the digits of integer and decimal (fraction), if any. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:33 PM Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> With respect, it's still not clear how you want to interact with the >>>>> array of values once you've destructured a Float into your array format. >>>>> >>>>> If all you have is an array of single-digit numbers that represent the >>>>> values in the tenths/hundredths/etc. positions of the source number, how >>>>> does this actually circumvent the challenges of representing Decimal >>>>> values >>>>> that aren't exactly representable as a Float? >>>>> >>>>> To illustrate this challenge, let's use the classic example we've all >>>>> seen hundreds of times: >>>>> >>>>> > .1 + .2 >>>>> 0.30000000000000004 >>>>> >>>>> For a long time, all the reading I would do about *why* this produced >>>>> a weird result would *sort* of make sense and *sort* of confuse me. >>>>> That is, I could understand *why* 3/10ths isn't representable as a >>>>> Float, but then I would get confused by the fact that I could type `.3` >>>>> into a REPL, and it would *actually work *(??!): >>>>> >>>>> > .3 >>>>> 0.3 >>>>> >>>>> I mean, who's lying? How come `.3` works fine when I just type it >>>>> straight in, and `.1 + .3` works just fine, but there's just these >>>>> specific cases like `.1 + .2` where all of a sudden `.3` decides not >>>>> to be representable again? >>>>> >>>>> I admit this is conjecture, but maybe that's part of the confusion >>>>> motivating this proposal? And maybe the idea is that if we can break `.1` >>>>> and `.2` into some sort of an array structure (e.g., [0, 1] and [0, >>>>> 2]), then we can add the individual parts as integers (giving us >>>>> something like [0, 3]) which we can then just convert back into a >>>>> single numeric value at the end as 0.3, and voila, no >>>>> 0.30000000000000004 shenanigans? >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that this all builds on a fundamental misunderstanding >>>>> of what's going. Let's revisit the basic example of entering a value into >>>>> the REPL: >>>>> >>>>> > .3 >>>>> 0.3 >>>>> >>>>> This, as I stated earlier, contributed greatly to my own hangups in >>>>> understanding what was going on here. What I personally didn't understand >>>>> was that the `0.3` value you see above isn't actually the *Decimal* >>>>> value 0.3. It's just a *very* close approximation of 0.3. (so close, >>>>> in fact, that 0.3 is the *closest* Decimal value that it can be >>>>> rounded to, so that's what gets emitted). >>>>> >>>>> So, going back to our earlier example, why do we get a *different* >>>>> output when we're dealing with the result of a mathematical operation, as >>>>> opposed to getting the *same* very close approximation of 0.3 that we >>>>> get when we simply type it into the REPL? >>>>> >>>>> > .1 + .2 >>>>> 0.30000000000000004 >>>>> >>>>> The answer lies in the fact that 0.1 and 0.2 *also* can't be >>>>> represented exactly as Floats. Just like we saw with 0.3, we can type them >>>>> into the REPL and see a value that looks the exact same being emitted back >>>>> at us: >>>>> >>>>> > .1 >>>>> 0.1 >>>>> > .2 >>>>> 0.2 >>>>> >>>>> ...but also like we saw with 0.3, they only *look* like accurate >>>>> representations. Once again, 0.1 and 0.2 are just the closest Decimal >>>>> values that the underlying Float values can be rounded to for display. >>>>> >>>>> This rounding behavior, then, is what causes us to get >>>>> 0.30000000000000004 when we add them together, because the *slight* >>>>> rounding error with 0.1 and the *slight* rounding error with 0.2 >>>>> compound to result in a Float that no longer rounds closer to 0.3, and >>>>> instead closer to the "wrong" Decimal value that we see emitted before. >>>>> >>>>> It's worth noting that this same behavior applies to, e.g., 0.1 + >>>>> 0.3, even though that *looks* like it produces the correct result of >>>>> 0.4. In reality, however, this is just a case where the rounding >>>>> errors have the effect of (almost) canceling each other out, such that the >>>>> resulting Float rounds closer to 0.4 than any other value for display >>>>> purposes (despite being only negligibly more accurate than our >>>>> 0.30000000000000004 result was). >>>>> >>>>> Ok, so why am I trying to explain all this? Because I'm trying to >>>>> illustrate why it sounds like this proposal doesn't actually solve the >>>>> problem that you want it to. Is it possible to standardize a system for >>>>> transformations and math operations like the following? >>>>> >>>>> const arg1 = numberToArray(0.1) // [0, 1] >>>>> const arg2 = numberToArray(0.2) // [0, 2] >>>>> >>>>> const arraySum = addArrayNumbers(arg1, arg2) // [0, 3] >>>>> >>>>> const result = arrayToNumber(arraySum) // 0.3 >>>>> >>>>> Sure, and at the very end, you actually get a value that *looks* right >>>>> (0.3, yay!). But *it's still not actually 0.3.* So what become the >>>>> motivation for this? You have a solution that, in terms of memory and CPU >>>>> cycles, is orders of magnitude more costly to calculate than `0.1 + >>>>> 0.2` as a plain JavaScript expression, and in return you get a result >>>>> that is, *at best*, infinitesimally more accurate than the >>>>> alternative when carried all the way out to the quadrillionths place or >>>>> greater. >>>>> >>>>> Do you actually have a use case for mathematical operations that are >>>>> fault tolerant enough to represent Decimal values as Floats, but that >>>>> fault >>>>> tolerance is sensitive to very, very specific rounding behavior at the >>>>> quadrillionths level? I can't even imagine what that use case would be. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:06 AM guest271314 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JS numbers are specified to be in terms of IEEE-754 doubles, so >>>>>>> tenths, hundredths, and so on cannot be precisely represented. [1] So >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> is no way to increase precision here beyond the above that Tab showed, >>>>>>> assuming each of those operations are accurate to the bit. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure what the message is trying to convey? The code at the first >>>>>> post already overcomes the issue of >>>>>> >>>>>> i % 1 // 0.5670000000000073 >>>>>> >>>>>> described by Tab. All of the input numbers are converted to array >>>>>> then back to number without losing any precision or adding more numbers >>>>>> to >>>>>> the input. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal suggests that each discrete digit of any number a user >>>>>> can get and set and be clearly defined with a consistent name, or >>>>>> reference. Converting the number to an array is a simple means of >>>>>> processing each digit independently. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:41 AM Isiah Meadows < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> JS numbers are specified to be in terms of IEEE-754 doubles, so >>>>>>> tenths, hundredths, and so on cannot be precisely represented. [1] So >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> is no way to increase precision here beyond the above that Tab showed, >>>>>>> assuming each of those operations are accurate to the bit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]: >>>>>>> https://www.exploringbinary.com/why-0-point-1-does-not-exist-in-floating-point/ >>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 13:26 guest271314 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So this would help with precision? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To an appreciable degree, yes, without the scope of JavaScript >>>>>>>> floating-point number implementation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The gist of the proposal is to formalize, standardize, or whatever >>>>>>>> term specification writers want to use, the *naming* of each method or >>>>>>>> operation which can get and set each discrete digit of a number - >>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>> using String methods. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For input >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1234.567 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Each digit has a formal name which developers can get and set, >>>>>>>> whether in an array, object or number format. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:17 PM Michael Theriot < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So this would help with precision? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 10, 2019, guest271314 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (If you really wanted this as an integer, it's not well-founded; >>>>>>>>>>> .567 >>>>>>>>>>> isn't exactly representable as a double, so JS doesn't know that >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> "meant" it to have only three digits after the decimal point, >>>>>>>>>>> and thus >>>>>>>>>>> want 567 as the answer. You'll instead get some very very large >>>>>>>>>>> integer that *starts with* 567, followed by a bunch of zeros, >>>>>>>>>>> followed >>>>>>>>>>> by some randomish digits at the end.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The code at the first post solves that problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the question is still "what would someone use this >>>>>>>>>>> information for?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That question has been answered several times in the posts above. >>>>>>>>>> This users' motivation was and is the ability to manipulate >>>>>>>>>> JavaScript >>>>>>>>>> floating-point numbers (which could be considered "broken", as you >>>>>>>>>> described above) in order to solve mathematical problems (in this >>>>>>>>>> case, >>>>>>>>>> directly calculating the *n*th lexicographic permutation) with >>>>>>>>>> the number or decimal being represented as an array, without having >>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>> concerned with not getting the same value when the array is >>>>>>>>>> converted back >>>>>>>>>> to a number. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Felipe Nascimento de Moura mentioned several other applications. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The work has already been done. This proposal is essentially to >>>>>>>>>> standardize the naming conventions. Whether a Number method is used >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i.getTensMethod >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or an array is used >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> arr["integer"] // 1234 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or an object where values are arrays is used >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> o["fraction"] // .567 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Having mentioned Intl.NumberFormat earlier in the thread, if the >>>>>>>>>> issue devoting resources to a *new *proposal, Intl.NumberFormate >>>>>>>>>> can be extended; e.g. a rough draft in code >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> function formatNumberParts(args) { >>>>>>>>>> return Object.assign({sign:0, fraction:[0], integer:[0]}, >>>>>>>>>> ...args.filter(({type}) => type === "integer" || type === "fraction" >>>>>>>>>> || >>>>>>>>>> type === "minusSign").map(({type, value}) => ({[type === "minusSign" >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>> "sign" : type]: type !== "minusSign" ? [...value].map(Number) : >>>>>>>>>> -1}))); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> let number = -123; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> let formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat('en-US'); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> let res = formatter.formatToParts(number); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> formatNumberParts(res); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the concern is that the proposal would not be useful, consider >>>>>>>>>> what you would *name* various uses of Math.trunc and remainder >>>>>>>>>> operator used at your message? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:58 PM Tab Atkins Jr. < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:10 AM Felipe Nascimento de Moura >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Personally, I don't think it would be THAT useful... >>>>>>>>>>> > but...I think there is something behind this proposal that >>>>>>>>>>> makes sense. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > I do believe it could be useful for developers to have an >>>>>>>>>>> easier access to number parts or characteristics. >>>>>>>>>>> > Perhaps something like: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > const i = 1234.567; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you provide a scenario in which these would do something >>>>>>>>>>> useful, >>>>>>>>>>> such that it would be worth adding them over just using the math >>>>>>>>>>> operations that already exist? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.float ); // 567 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> i % 1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (If you really wanted this as an integer, it's not well-founded; >>>>>>>>>>> .567 >>>>>>>>>>> isn't exactly representable as a double, so JS doesn't know that >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> "meant" it to have only three digits after the decimal point, >>>>>>>>>>> and thus >>>>>>>>>>> want 567 as the answer. You'll instead get some very very large >>>>>>>>>>> integer that *starts with* 567, followed by a bunch of zeros, >>>>>>>>>>> followed >>>>>>>>>>> by some randomish digits at the end.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.abs ); // 1234 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.thousands ); // 1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i / 1000) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.million ); // 0 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i / 1e6) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.hundred ); // 2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i / 100) % 10 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.hundreds ); // 12 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i / 100) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.ten ); // 2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i / 10) % 10 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.tens ); // 123 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i / 10) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.tenth ); // 5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i % 1 * 10) % 10 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.tenths ); // 5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i % 1 * 10) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.hundredth ); // 6 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i % 1 * 100) % 10 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > console.log( i.hundredths ); // 56 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math.trunc(i % 1 * 100) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some of these are easy to remember and use; others take some >>>>>>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>>>> to deploy. But the question is still "what would someone use this >>>>>>>>>>> information for?", such that the benefit to developers is worth >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> cost to all parties involved (spec writers, implementors, >>>>>>>>>>> testers, and >>>>>>>>>>> then developers having to navigate a larger stdlib). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ~TJ >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeremy Martin >>>>> 661.312.3853 >>>>> @jmar777 <https://twitter.com/jmar777> / @j <https://stream.live/j> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Martin >>> 661.312.3853 >>> @jmar777 <https://twitter.com/jmar777> / @j <https://stream.live/j> >>> >>> > > -- > Jeremy Martin > 661.312.3853 > @jmar777 <https://twitter.com/jmar777> / @j <https://stream.live/j> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
