Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Brendan Eich [brendan at mozilla.com]
>
>> No wrapping object type -- those are legacy, to be avoided. See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_objects. The main thing is value not reference semantics.
>
> Hmm, is `0UL.toString()` not possible then? What about `0UL + ""`?

Of course those are possible -- int64 and uint64 are value *objects*, as 
I shows last message:

js> i = -1L
-1L
js> i === int64(-1)
true
js> u = 0UL
0UL
js> u = ~u
18446744073709551615UL
js> u.toString(16)
"ffffffffffffffff"

There's no mutable Int64 or Uint64 wrapper, that's the point.

/be

Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Brendan Eich [brendan at mozilla.com]
>
>> No wrapping object type -- those are legacy, to be avoided. See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_objects. The main thing is value not reference semantics.
>
> Hmm, is `0UL.toString()` not possible then? What about `0UL + ""`?

Of course those are possible -- int64 and uint64 are value *objects*, as 
I shows last message:

```
js> i = -1L
-1L
js> i === int64(-1)

true
js> u = 0UL

0UL
js> u = ~u

18446744073709551615UL
js> u.toString(16)
"ffffffffffffffff"
```

There's no mutable Int64 or Uint64 wrapper, that's the point.