On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The EcmaScript 3.1 draft standard is rapidly congealing towards an
official
standard. The Kona version at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
is the important one -- details
The indexOf and lastIndexOf methods are new in ES3.1, and are the
only
methods in the entire spec that depend on ===.
Strictly speaking that's true, but only because the switch statement
is not
a method. switch statements depend on ===.
There was a recently reported bug for
Re: === again (sorry)
I see a small risk with changing this. Array.prototype.indexOf is
widely emulated in IE and is also used a lot in browser that support it.
This change would cause issues with NaN and -0. However I don't think
that changing these 2 edge cases would lead to too many
[Was on airplanes since my last post, arrived late in SeaTac ... will try
and consoliate replies on this thread to one e-mail :-)]
I'm not sure what you are getting at. a[1] and a[1.000] refer to the
same property in ECMAScript, but a[1m] and a[1.000m] would not. Are
you saying this isn't
David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
There is still a blocking issue that's been discussed a lot but
left
off the issues here:
- Treatment of cohorts in the default conversion of decimal to
string. [...]
I'm still
and in particular they don't call it on the index in an array
indexing
operation.
This is true. But that in itself is not the problem. Currently,
should a
programmer write:
a[1]=first
a[1.000]=second
it's assumed that the second case was an accidental typo and they
Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-0 and 0 are not the same given floating point number. 1/-0 vs. 1/
0 and Math.atan2(-0,0) vs. 0,0 are but two examples.
Yes, I understand their operational difference. Whether
Languages have personalities, and people build up expectations based
on these characteristics. As much as possible, I'd like to suggest
that ECMAScript be internally consistent, and not have one independent
choice (binary vs decimal) have unexpected implications over another
(signaling
You're still making the unjustified assumption that the choice of
cohort member is productive information. The examples here have
shown that it is not, and it leads to bad results. Things are much
simpler by not trying to make questionable distinctions between
1 and 1e12.
yawn The 'spelling' of keywords has probably eaten more
programming-language-committee bandwidth than any other topic. But it
really is only worth discussing at the *start* of the design of a
language, where one puts principles in place (such as 'abbreviations only
shorten and never remove
10 matches
Mail list logo
