guest271314 (2019-03-08T15:54:04.000Z)
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-03-08T16:12:07.644Z)
> There's any prior art/work in your idea? Any C or other languages > functions, any spec'd norm (IEEE, ISO)? Or any library implementing it that > got popular in a niche? Having any examples of implementations (aside for > your own of course) would help your proposal immensely. I'm not being toxic > here this is a really specific use-case that I know almost nothing. There is prior art relevant to determining where the decimal portion of a number is, which is linked at the SO question. AFAIK there is no prior art relevant to the full conversion from number to array and array to number, including decimal numbers. The proposal does not ask for code to solve the problem. The proposal asks for this body to consider standardizing the procedure in a specification. For example, given input the number *e* 2.718281828459045, could be represented in an array in several different manners [2, .718281828459045] [2.7, 18281828459045] [2, 0.7, 1, 8, 2, 8, 1, 8, 2, 8, 4, 5, 9] And there is also the case of negative integer and negative decimal representations. These different representations of numbers in an array could be given appropriate names for disambiguation, by a standardization body. From perspective here the last representation provides the most flexibility, though the others could be useful for different applications. > About users not being concerned with your problem, we have to be really > cautious when supporting proposals, we can't just add every function and > syntax that solves someone problems, the language would became bloated and > complex rapidly. There's a fantastic thread [1] that explains the point a > lot better than me and you should definitely read it. > Don't be angered if we don't give a lot of reception for your first > proposal, you can always improve your idea or get a new one. Whether this body decides to move forward addressing the matter or not is *your* decision. Am not "angered". The responses are simply conjecture; western academic SOP. Address such conjecture routinely in all fields of endeavor; from history to biology to physics to law; et al. etc., without rancor. Do not care one way or the other, as am not a disciple of or enamored with that or any other regime. Brought this to tc39 attention once examples of working code were completed. Do or do not do what thou wilst.
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-03-08T16:09:16.419Z)
> There's any prior art/work in your idea? Any C or other languages > functions, any spec'd norm (IEEE, ISO)? Or any library implementing it that > got popular in a niche? Having any examples of implementations (aside for > your own of course) would help your proposal immensely. I'm not being toxic > here this is a really specific use-case that I know almost nothing. There is prior art relevant to determining where the decimal portion of a number is, which is linked at the SO question. AFAIK there is no prior art relevant to the full conversion from number to array and array to number, including decimal numbers. The proposal does not ask for code to solve the problem. The proposal asks for this body to consider standardizing the procedure in a specification. For example, given input the number *e* 2.718281828459045, could be represented in an array in several different manners [2, .718281828459045] [2.7, 18281828459045] [2, 0.7, 1, 8, 2, 8, 1, 8, 2, 8, 4, 5, 9] And there is also the case of negative integer and negative decimal representations. These different representations of numbers in an array could be given appropriate names for disambiguation, by a standardization body. From perspective here the last representation provides the most flexibility, though the others could be useful for different applications. > About users not being concerned with your problem, we have to be really > cautious when supporting proposals, we can't just add every function and > syntax that solves someone problems, the language would became bloated and > complex rapidly. There's a fantastic thread [1] that explains the point a > lot better than me and you should definitely read it. > Don't be angered if we don't give a lot of reception for your first > proposal, you can always improve your idea or get a new one. Whether this body decides to move forward addressing the matter or not is *your* decision. Am not "angered". The responses are simply conjecture; western academic SOP. Address such conjecture routinely in all fields of endeavor; from history to biology to physics to law; etc., et al., without rancor. Do not care one way or the other, as am not a disciple of or enamored with that or any other regime. Brought this to tc39 attention once examples of working code were completed. Do or do not do what thou wilst.
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-03-08T16:04:02.682Z)
> There's any prior art/work in your idea? Any C or other languages > functions, any spec'd norm (IEEE, ISO)? Or any library implementing it that > got popular in a niche? Having any examples of implementations (aside for > your own of course) would help your proposal immensely. I'm not being toxic > here this is a really specific use-case that I know almost nothing. There is prior art relevant to determining where the decimal portion of a number is, which is linked at the SO question. AFAIK there is no prior art relevant to the full conversion from number to array and array to number, including decimal numbers. The proposal does not ask for code to solve the problem. The proposal asks for this body to consider standardizing the procedure in a specification. For example, given input the number *e* 2.718281828459045, could be represented in an array in several different manners [2, .718281828459045] [2.7, 18281828459045] [2, 0.7, 1, 8, 2, 8, 1, 8, 2, 8, 4, 5, 9] And there is also the case of negative integer and negative decimal representations. These different representations of numbers in an array could be given appropriate names for disambiguation, by a standardization body. From perspective here the last representation provides the most flexibility, though the others could be useful for different applications. > About users not being concerned with your problem, we have to be really > cautious when supporting proposals, we can't just add every function and > syntax that solves someone problems, the language would became bloated and > complex rapidly. There's a fantastic thread [1] that explains the point a > lot better than me and you should definitely read it. > Don't be angered if we don't give a lot of reception for your first > proposal, you can always improve your idea or get a new one. Whether this body decides to move forward addressing the matter or not is *your* decision. Am not "angered". The responses are simply western academic conjecture; SOP. Address such conjecture routinely in all fields of endeavor; from history to biology to physics to law; etc., et al., without rancor. Do not care one way or the other, as am not a disciple of or enamored with that or any other regime. Brought this to tc39 attention once examples of working code were completed. Do or do not do what thou wilst.
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-03-08T16:00:09.456Z)
> There's any prior art/work in your idea? Any C or other languages > functions, any spec'd norm (IEEE, ISO)? Or any library implementing it that > got popular in a niche? Having any examples of implementations (aside for > your own of course) would help your proposal immensely. I'm not being toxic > here this is a really specific use-case that I know almost nothing. There is prior art relevant to determining where the decimal portion of a number is, which is linked at the SO question. AFAIK there is no prior art relevant to the full conversion from number to array and array to number, including decimal numbers. The proposal does not ask for code to solve the problem. The proposal asks for this body to consider standardizing the procedure in a specification. For example, given input the number *e* 2.718281828459045, could be represented in an array in several different manners [2, .718281828459045] [2.7, 18281828459045] [2, 0.7, 1, 8, 2, 8, 1, 8, 2, 8, 4, 5, 9] And there is also the case of negative integer and negative decimal representations. These different representations of numbers in an array could be given appropriate names for disambiguation, by a standardization body. From perspective here the last representation provides the most flexibility, though the others could be useful for different applications. > About users not being concerned with your problem, we have to be really > cautious when supporting proposals, we can't just add every function and > syntax that solves someone problems, the language would became bloated and > complex rapidly. There's a fantastic thread [1] that explains the point a > lot better than me and you should definitely read it. > Don't be angered if we don't give a lot of reception for your first > proposal, you can always improve your idea or get a new one. Whether this body decides to move forward addressing the matter or not is *your* decision. Am not "angered". The responses are simply standard western academic conjecture. Address such conjecture routinely in all fields of endeavor; from history to biology to physics to law; etc., et al., without rancor. That is how western academia operates. Do not care one way or the other, as am not a disciple of or enamored with that or any other regime. Brought this to tc39 attention once examples of working code were completed. Do or do not do what thou wilst.
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-03-08T15:56:29.941Z)
> There's any prior art/work in your idea? Any C or other languages > functions, any spec'd norm (IEEE, ISO)? Or any library implementing it that > got popular in a niche? Having any examples of implementations (aside for > your own of course) would help your proposal immensely. I'm not being toxic > here this is a really specific use-case that I know almost nothing. There is prior art relevant to determining where the decimal portion of a number is, which is linked at the SO question. AFAIK there is no prior art relevant to the full conversion from number to array and array to number, including decimal numbers. The proposal does not ask for code to solve the problem. The proposal asks for this body to consider standardizing the procedure in a specification. For example, given input the number *e* 2.718281828459045, could be represented in an array in several different manners [2, .718281828459045] [2.7, 18281828459045] [2, 0.7, 1, 8, 2, 8, 1, 8, 2, 8, 4, 5, 9] And there is also the case of negative integer and negative decimal representations. These different representations of numbers in an array could be given appropriate names for disambiguation, by a standardization body. From perspective here the last representation provides the most flexibility, though the others could be useful for different applications. > About users not being concerned with your problem, we have to be really > cautious when supporting proposals, we can't just add every function and > syntax that solves someone problems, the language would became bloated and > complex rapidly. There's a fantastic thread [1] that explains the point a > lot better than me and you should definitely read it. > Don't be angered if we don't give a lot of reception for your first > proposal, you can always improve your idea or get a new one. Whether this body decides to move forward addressing the matter or not is *your* decision. Am not "angered". The responses are simply standard western academic conjecture. Address such conjecture routinely in all fields of endeavor; from history to biology to physics to law; etc., et al., without rancor. That is just who or what people are, especially within the realm of western academia. Do not care one way or the other, as am not a disciple of that regime ("Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"). Brought this to tc39 attention once examples of working code were completed.