Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 proposal space -- decimal
peter.hall at memorphic.com
Wed Feb 27 13:29:02 PST 2008
OK. Decimal type just makes sense to me. And I think this is one case
where I think you can break "the rule" that says correct type
annotations do not affect the program.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Dick Sweet <sweet at adobe.com> wrote:
> A couple of comments from the fellow who did the trial implementation of
> decimal in Tamarin.
> It would be pretty easy to have decimal if you have to explicitly
> declare variables of that type and need to explicitly denote literals
> that you want to be decimal with the "m" suffix. Such denotation would
> not be necessary for literals without fractional parts, unless they are
> beyond the range of integer representation within a double. Promotion
> of arithmetic to decimal in mixed situations isn't that hard to do.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brendan Eich [mailto:brendan at mozilla.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:58 AM
> To: Peter Hall
> Cc: es4-discuss Discuss; TC39; Mike Cowlishaw
> Subject: Re: Adobe position paper on the ECMAScript 4 proposal space --
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> > 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,
> I should have written "without generic operator methods" -- ES4 could
> still have a decimal type and built-in operators and literal support,
> but no modal defaulting (no "big red switch").
More information about the Es4-discuss