Math.sign vs ±0
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
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
> 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?
> 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.
> Ingvar Stepanyan.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss