Es-discuss - several decimal discussions

Brendan Eich brendan at
Sun Aug 24 19:44:15 PDT 2008

On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Brendan Eich  
> <brendan at> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Why is eq being proposed whatever happens with Decimal?
>>> Because in the absence of decimal, === is close enough to an
>>> "identical" test that one can practically code around the problem
>>> cases (NaN and -0)
>> You're assuming 1.0m === 1.00m must be true. I'm disputing that (see
>> exchange with Sam, who may agree).
> I agree that you are disputing that.  ;-P
> Less than 10 hours ago, ISTR you were suggesting the opposite.
> "there's a weak case for false"...

I acknowledged that and then went on to shoot it down, you're right.  
But really, I'm wondering why it is important to have Object.eq if  
1.0m === 1.00m. Without Object.hashcode. The weak case I mentioned  
would not need Object.eq. The strong case I favored left users  
reaching for compareTotal or stringification and ===. Either way I do  
not see the necessity of eq.

Sorry, I misstated your position (I think!). What's your position,  
for sure?

> On Thursday, ISTR Mark arguing that "correspond to the same point on
> the real number line" was close enough to an "identical" test.
> I think I need to sit down now, I'm getting dizzy.  :-)

The way to settle this is to give rationales for all the moving  
parts, so we can pin some down and make them stop moving.


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list