Revisiting Decimal

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Jan 9 14:34:14 PST 2009


Sam's mail cited below has gone without a reply for over a month.  
Decimal is surely not a high priority, but this message deserves some  
kind of response or we'll have to reconstruct the state of the  
argument later, at probably higher cost.

I was not at the Redmond meeting, but I would like to take Sam's word  
that the "cohort/toString" issue was settled there. I heard from Rob  
Sayre something to this effect.

But in case we don't have consensus, could any of you guys state the  
problem for the benefit of everyone on this list? Sorry if this seems  
redundant. It will help, I'm convinced (compared to no responses and  
likely differing views of what the problem is, or what the consensus  
was, followed months later by even more painful reconstruction of the  
state of the argument).

The wrapper vs. primitive issue remains, I believe everyone agrees.

/be

On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 2008/12/4 Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>:
>>
>> Sam pointed that out too, and directed everyone to his test- 
>> implementation
>> results page:
>> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/09/20/estest.html
>> Indeed we still have an open issue there ignoring the wrapper one:
>>
>> [Sam wrote:] I think the only major outstanding semantic issue was  
>> wrapper
>> objects; apart from that, the devil was in the detail of spec  
>> wording.[End Sam]
>>
>> No, the cohort/toString issue remains too (at least).
>
> With a longer schedule, I would like to revisit that; but as of
> Redmond, we had consensus on what that would look like in the context
> of a 3.1 edition.
>
> From where I sit, I find myself in the frankly surreal position that
> we are in early December, and there are no known issues of consensus,
> though I respect that David-Sarah claims that there is one on
> wrappers, and I await his providing of more detail.
>
>> /be
>
> - Sam Ruby



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list