Math.sign vs ±0

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Mon Nov 4 09:54:25 PST 2013


There's no particular reason not to do something like that, except:

1. It is not usable (see 
http://www.jroller.com/cpurdy/entry/the_seven_habits_of_highly1%23comment-1130764636000).

2. Math is becoming a dumping ground, as noted up-thread.

3. Polyfillability is not important if old code can hand-code for better 
perf, and all evidence is that it can.

Hacking JS into an uglier state for short-term illusory wins, not a good 
plan!

/be

> Ingvar Stepanyan <mailto:me at rreverser.com>
> November 4, 2013 1:10 AM
> Why can’t we do Uint64 class inside Math namespace to be used for all 
> the 64-bit arithmetic operations?
>
> Like:
>
> var x = Math.Uint64(2);
> var y = Math.Uint64.fromString(“0x12345678abcdef01”);
> var z = x.mul(y); // or Math.Uint64.mul(x, y)
> var z_hi = z.hi; // highest 32-bit part
> var z_lo = z.lo; // lowest 32-bit part
> var z_val = Number(z); // or z.valueOf(), returns IEEE.754-compatible 
> float64 number when possible (with highest possible precision, so no 
> loss up to +-2^52)
>
> Such syntax looks not so “low-level” for JS devs, should be easily 
> polyfilled by current engines and optimized by new ones.
>
> Regards,
> Ingvar Stepanyan.
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


More information about the es-discuss mailing list