Re: Volunteers needed: Function.prototype.bind() in ES3.1 pseudo-code

Mark S. Miller wrote: > So what we need now is a spec for Function.prototype.bind() > in the peculiar pseudo-code style -- combining the worst of > COBOL and assembly language -- used in the rest of the spec. > Unfortunately, I won't have time between now and then. Would > anyone care to contribu

Re: use decimal

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: >> [re: ] >> >> Long long ago I actually had read that document carefully, and I had >> also looked at I think the [Brown 1981] which it cites. (But the doc >> has no

Re: Decimal comparisons

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 19, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> > We've been around this block on the list

Re: Ye olde arguments argument (was: Topic list - pending changes and issues for the ES3.1 spec)

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Mike Shaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If a thrown native object did not already have a stack, what is the >> harm in adding one? > > What should be done with a sealed object that's thro

Re: Volunteers needed: Function.prototype.bind() in ES3.1 pseudo-code

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:41, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 2008/9/18 Mark S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> >> There is r

Re: Decimal comparisons

On Sep 19, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On Sep 19, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> Does the committee feel that it can ever add new values to typeof >>> under any circumstances? >> >> Certainly not if

Re: Decimal comparisons

On Sep 19, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: >>> Consider 1.1m instead of 1m. > > Would be: > '{"foo":1.1}' Ok, how about serializing the object you get by evaluating {"foo":0.1 +0.2}? >> JSON does not provide for decimal, and receiver-makes-it-wrong is >> a bug. >> JSON would need to be

Re: Decimal comparisons

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 19, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Does the committee feel that it can ever add new values to typeof >> under any circumstances? > > Certainly not if there is "opt-in version selection". The "opt-in" version

Re: Decimal comparisons

>> +1 for typeof 1m === 'number'. As an example of breakage, I believe >> Crockford's current version of his JSON library would not do as I would >> desire with decimals: >> >> JSON.stringify({foo:1m}) -> "{\"foo\":undefined}" > > Why is that worse than producing '{"foo":1}'? The fact that you kn

Re: Decimal comparisons

On Sep 19, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > The motivation for the fourth choice on the first question is to > produce a value that is is valid JSON, is unlikely to be widely used > today (by virtue of the capital E), will fall back to binary 64 many > JSON implementations, and can be used as a

Re: Ye olde arguments argument (was: Topic list - pending changes and issues for the ES3.1 spec)

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If a thrown native object did not already have a stack, what is the > harm in adding one? What should be done with a sealed object that's thrown? I'm having trouble reconciling "all thrown objects should have .stack thru

Re: Decimal comparisons

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:58 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > * Like Crock, I prefer that typeof 1m === 'number'. However, unlike Crock's and Brendan's agreement, I think this should be unconditional. I think it w

Re: use decimal

> "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 dif

Re: Volunteers needed: Function.prototype.bind() in ES3.1 pseudo-code

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:41, Garrett Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/9/18 Mark S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > There is really no point in exposing the two different cases in a > spec. A spec should descr