Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Fri Dec 14 09:25:44 PST 2012
NaN is NotANumber.
NaN is a number.
Object(NaN) is not a number.
Thus, Object(NaN) isn't NotANumber.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, John-David Dalton
<john.david.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> But `myNaN === myNaN` is true if `myNaN = Object(NaN)`.
> That's my point. Normally testing for NaN can be done via `myNaN !== myNaN`
> but `Object(NaN)` throws a wrench in that.
> It would be great if there was 1 function that was able to detect NaN,
> instead of having libs step up and do it.
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Nathan Wall <nathan.wall at live.com> wrote:
>> > Wat? This seems to be a good reason to allow `Object(NaN)` and use the
>> > NumberWrapper brand as it cannot be tested via the normal way of
>> > `myNaN !== myNaN`.
>> But `myNaN === myNaN` is true if `myNaN = Object(NaN)`. Testing against
>> the object is different. Nothing breaks.
>> var myNaN = Object(NaN);
>> [ 1, 3, myNaN ].indexOf(myNaN); // => 2
>> Works as expected. The only problem which occurs is when you're working
>> with primitive NaN, in which case the only existing good ways to test for it
>> are `x !== x` and `typeof x == 'number' && isNaN(x)`. The purpose of
>> `Number.isNaN` is to provide a way to test this case which is easier to read
>> and understand. Note that if `x = Object(NaN)` both of these tests fail.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss