Revisiting Decimal

Kris Zyp kris at
Fri Jan 9 14:54:32 PST 2009

Hash: SHA1
What is the current state of the result of typeof on decimals, was
there consensus on this? I hope we will be using typeof 1.1m ->
"number". For a little bit of emperical evidence, I went through
Dojo's codebase and their are numerous places that we would probably
want to alter our code to include additional checks for "decimal" if
typeof 1.1m -> "decimal", whereas if "number" we would probably leave
virtually everything intact in regards to number handling with
consideration for decimals.

Brendan Eich wrote:
> 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>:
>>> Sam pointed that out too, and directed everyone to his
>>> test-implementation results page:
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing
> list Es-discuss at

- --
Kris Zyp
(503) 806-1841
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list