- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 01:56:08 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 2/5/12 9:11 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> >> I also don't understand why it's important to avoid a discontinuity on >> something >> that's unlikely to be iterated on. > > > It doesn't matter whether it gets iterated. It's more important whether > someone will ever compute a value for it, especially in JavaScript. Given > that computation in JS happens on floating-point numbers and that such > computation is subject to rounding error, any sort of discontinuous behavior > means that in some conditions behavior will suddenly depend on something > like order of addition operations when adding up the elements of an array. > And then web developers will (rightly, imo) curse whoever came up with such > a setup. Yes, this. On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: > I'd also be ok with disallowing values < 1, if that makes you or the implementors > there any happier :) I'm also okay with this, though if we're accepting that non-integer iteration counts are useful, I think that counts between 0 and 1 are fine. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 09:57:02 UTC