OK. Decimal type just makes sense to me. And I think this is one case where I think you can break "the rule" that says correct type annotations do not affect the program.
Peter On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Dick Sweet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A couple of comments from the fellow who did the trial implementation of > decimal in Tamarin. > > It would be pretty easy to have decimal if you have to explicitly > declare variables of that type and need to explicitly denote literals > that you want to be decimal with the "m" suffix. Such denotation would > not be necessary for literals without fractional parts, unless they are > beyond the range of integer representation within a double. Promotion > of arithmetic to decimal in mixed situations isn't that hard to do. > > Dick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:58 AM > To: Peter Hall > Cc: es4-discuss Discuss; TC39; Mike Cowlishaw > Subject: Re: Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 proposal space -- > decimal > > > > On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > 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, > > I should have written "without generic operator methods" -- ES4 could > still have a decimal type and built-in operators and literal support, > but no modal defaulting (no "big red switch"). > > /be > > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
