Normative: require implementation-approximated numeric methods to return a Number value #2523
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
michaelficarra
added
the
normative change
|
Every math function also returns "an implementation-approximated value" rather than "an implementation-approximated Number value". I think it would be better for "implementation-approximated" to imply Number. That's how I understood it, certainly. |
|
I don't think it's clear that "implementation-approximated value" implies that it's a Number value. I'll add the other cases to this PR. |
michaelficarra
changed the title
michaelficarra
commented
Sep 17, 2021
spec.html
Outdated
| @@ -28182,7 +28182,7 @@ <h1>parseInt ( _string_, _radix_ )</h1> | |||
| 1. If _S_ contains a code unit that is not a radix-_R_ digit, let _end_ be the index within _S_ of the first such code unit; otherwise, let _end_ be the length of _S_. | |||
| 1. Let _Z_ be the substring of _S_ from 0 to _end_. | |||
| 1. If _Z_ is empty, return *NaN*. | |||
| 1. Let _mathInt_ be the integer value that is represented by _Z_ in radix-_R_ notation, using the letters <b>A</b>-<b>Z</b> and <b>a</b>-<b>z</b> for digits with values 10 through 35. (However, if _R_ is 10 and _Z_ contains more than 20 significant digits, every significant digit after the 20th may be replaced by a 0 digit, at the option of the implementation; and if _R_ is not 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, or 32, then _mathInt_ may be an implementation-approximated value representing the integer value that is represented by _Z_ in radix-_R_ notation.) | |||
| 1. Let _mathInt_ be the integer value that is represented by _Z_ in radix-_R_ notation, using the letters <b>A</b>-<b>Z</b> and <b>a</b>-<b>z</b> for digits with values 10 through 35. (However, if _R_ is 10 and _Z_ contains more than 20 significant digits, every significant digit after the 20th may be replaced by a 0 digit, at the option of the implementation; and if _R_ is not 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, or 32, then _mathInt_ may be an implementation-approximated integer representing the integer value denoted by _Z_ in radix-_R_ notation.) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On this line, I've also adopted the "denoted by" wording we use in RoundMVResult.
|
Will there ever be implementation-approximated non-Number values? |
|
@ljharb There is one in this PR. |
|
ah, an integer MV. and you think the boilerplate of "Number" is useful versus having it be the default, given its frequency? |
|
Yeah, I wouldn't want everything described as "implementation-approximated" to also be implied to be a Number value, even if they all were. |
syg
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2021
michaelficarra
added
ready to merge
bakkot
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2021
ljharb
force-pushed
the
exponentiate-returns-Number
branch
from
1102b66
to
01a6d27
Compare
mathiasbynens
pushed a commit
to mathiasbynens/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is normative but I believe it was always what was intended, so we shouldn't need consensus on it.