Augmenting Number.prototype with the functions from Math

Jussi Kalliokoski jussi.kalliokoski at
Wed Jan 25 11:36:15 PST 2012

You can get emulate that kind of a feature quite simply in ES5+ (and
earlier, if you have enough polyfills, or make compromises) if you like it,
see .


On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Herby Vojčík <herby at> wrote:

> I see more a "cultural" question here. There are lots of functions in ES
> which would make perfect (and probably better) sense if called on object
> than from outside (definePrototype & Co., maybe even isArray), but it is
> probably seen more "Javascriptic" to put them statically into Object,
> Number, Array, whatever.
> I think it has something with feeling they should not be dynamic part of
> object's contract, but on the contrary, they should be "decoupled" into
> safe managerial havens of Object, Array etc.
> But I can't say for sure.
> As I see it, in ES this is the way. Even if I don't like it, and it seems
> to me cumbersome to always do Object.fooBarBazAndMore(x, ...), I accept it
> as "Javascriptic" way to go.
> Moving just pow would create more confusion, I think. Moving more would
> also create lot of confusion (in actual state, only hasOwnProperty is the
> case which seems to not align with this way, being in Object.prototype; and
> you often see code like var hasOwn = Object.prototype.**hasOwnProperty;
> or even var hasOwn =**Object.prototype.**hasOwnProperty)
> just to bring it back to "external actors" domain).
> Herby
> Xavier MONTILLET wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think it'd be nice to have the functions available in Math in
>> Number.prototype.
>> e.g.
>> Number.prototype.pow = function ( p ) {
>>     return Math.pow( this, p );
>> };
>> Since pow is supposed to be an operator, I feel better when writing
>> a.pow( b ) than Math.pow( a, b );
>> About the other methods, I'm not sure. They really are "functions" in
>> maths so it doesn't feel that weird calling them with Math.f( ).
>> Moreover if you store them in local variables.
>> But I still find doing a.abs( ).ceil( ) is way more convenient than
>> Math.ceil( Math.abs( a ) ).
>> So since numbers are litterals and therefore extending the prototype
>> won't break anything, why not add it?
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at
> ______________________________**_________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list