Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 proposal space -- decimal

Brendan Eich brendan at
Wed Feb 27 10:40:26 PST 2008

On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Peter Hall wrote:

> Was decimal ruled out as its own type?

First, nothing's "ruled out" -- you're asking the wrong guy if you  
want Adobe's position, but see Lars's reply to Mike Cowlishaw:  
decimal as a type without any implicit literal/operators mode is  
still possible, although the Adobe position paper defers it. As Lars  
noted, it even has a trial implementation in Tamarin.

Second, decimal is in the RI as proposed, more or less.

Finally, whatever we do, we won't make certain BigMistakes. I wrote a  
long time ago in

citing the amusing Cameron Purdy blog post at

The first comment:

> At a client gig, they were doing business/financial coding, so were  
> using BigDecimal.
> Of course, .add() and friends is too difficult, so they ended up  
> with roughly:
> BigDecimal subA = ...
> BigDecimal subB = ...
> BigDecimal total = new BigDecimal( subA.doubleValue() +  
> subB.doubleValue() );
> It was beautiful.
> Posted by Bob McWhirter on October 31, 2005 at 08:17 AM EST #

is horrifying testimony to the need for operator and literal syntax,  
if not implicit modal defaulting. If we keep decimal in ES4, it will  
have operators and literal support.


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list