This is a judgment call, I'm with Jason, I think we should revisit. I'm 
putting it on the TC39 meeting agenda.

/be

> Allen Wirfs-Brock <mailto:allen at wirfs-brock.com>
> January 15, 2014 11:26 AM
>
> So we discussed all that when we made that decision. I understand that 
> you disagree but is there any new data that should cause us to reopen 
> an issue that was already discussed and decided at a TC39 meeting?
>
> Allen
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> Jason Orendorff <mailto:jason.orendorff at gmail.com>
> January 15, 2014 11:18 AM
> ES6 adds a clz function, but it's a method of Number.prototype.clz
> rather than Math.clz.
>
> The rationale for this decision is here (search for clz in the page):
> http://esdiscuss.org/notes/2013-07-25
>
> Can we reverse this, for users' sake? The pattern in ES1-5 is quite
> strong: math functions go on the Math object.
>
> The rationale (What if we add a uint64 type?) doesn't seem compelling
> enough to justify the weirdness of the result: we'll have a single
> mathematical operation available only as a Number method, and all
> others available only as Math functions.
>
> -j
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>

This is a judgment call, I'm with Jason, I think we should revisit. I'm 
putting it on the TC39 meeting agenda.