On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> While I sympathize with the desire to make "integer" mean "mathematical integer," I don't think it's going to work out very well. Nobody actually cares about such functions, and you of course have the WATs of
>
> ```js
> Number.isInteger(9007199254740992.5) === true
> ```
>
> since the runtime couldn't distinguish this from `9007199254740992`.

This is what I was trying to point out as a ridiculous possibility in
Jeff's idea, except he claimed it's what he actually wanted. ;_;

> In practice all this ends up doing is forcing our currently-proposed useful functions/constants to have an "exact"/"EXACT" inserted into them.
>
> I think it would be easier just to accept that "integer" in JS does not mean "mathematical integer" but instead means "unambiguously representable integer," since that is operationally the useful definition.

Yes.

~TJ

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> While I sympathize with the desire to make "integer" mean "mathematical integer," I don't think it's going to work out very well. Nobody actually cares about such functions, and you of course have the WATs of
>
> ```js
> Number.isInteger(9007199254740992.5) === true
> ```
>
> since the runtime couldn't distinguish this from `9007199254740992`.

This is what I was trying to point out as a ridiculous possibility in
Jeff's idea, except he claimed it's what he actually wanted. ;_;

> In practice all this ends up doing is forcing our currently-proposed useful functions/constants to have an "exact"/"EXACT" inserted into them.
>
> I think it would be easier just to accept that "integer" in JS does not mean "mathematical integer" but instead means "unambiguously representable integer," since that is operationally the useful definition.

Yes.