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

Peter Hall 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.

Peter


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.
>
>  Dick
>
>
>  -----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 --
>  decimal
>
>
>
> 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").
>
>  /be
>
>



More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list