On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Peter Hall wrote: > Was decimal ruled out as its own type?
First, nothing's "ruled out" -- you're asking the wrong guy if you want Adobe's position, but see Lars's reply to Mike Cowlishaw: decimal as a type without any implicit literal/operators mode is still possible, although the Adobe position paper defers it. As Lars noted, it even has a trial implementation in Tamarin. Second, decimal is in the RI as proposed, more or less. Finally, whatever we do, we won't make certain BigMistakes. I wrote a long time ago in http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:decimal citing the amusing Cameron Purdy blog post at http://jroller.com/cpurdy/entry/the_seven_habits_of_highly1 The first comment: > At a client gig, they were doing business/financial coding, so were > using BigDecimal. > > Of course, .add() and friends is too difficult, so they ended up > with roughly: > > BigDecimal subA = ... > BigDecimal subB = ... > > BigDecimal total = new BigDecimal( subA.doubleValue() + > subB.doubleValue() ); > > It was beautiful. > > Posted by Bob McWhirter on October 31, 2005 at 08:17 AM EST # is horrifying testimony to the need for operator and literal syntax, if not implicit modal defaulting. If we keep decimal in ES4, it will have operators and literal support. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
