- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 03:53:22 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24241 Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |domenic@domenicdenicola.com --- Comment #4 from Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> --- As much as I would love to kill all the number types, I think their replacement needs a bit more thought first. E.g. a survey of the usages is important, to find out what predefined ranges people use (and whether they actually depend on it being in that range, or if they also do other range validation and just choose e.g. "short" because the valid values are in the range 1-3, or...). And you'd want some kind of specification for what to replace it with, which would probably be something vaguely [ThrowIf(>= 10, < 0)] or [ClampTo(1, 8)] or [Round] or [Floor] or similar. I think what's most offensive about the numeric types is not the behavior of coercing to integers or mandating a specific ranges, both of which are useful and in some cases necessary. What's offensive is that we pretend this behavior has something to do with traditional C-ish concepts of float, double, short, long, long long, etc., or that the variables are actually "typed" that way, when of course they're all just `Number` in JS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 03:53:23 UTC