Skip to content

Conversation

@thefourtheye
Copy link
Contributor

The +Infinity check is superfluous as the min function takes care
of that as well.

The `+Infinity` check is superfluous as the `min` function takes care
of that as well.
@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Nov 23, 2016

See #721 for last time...

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Nov 23, 2016

This looks like the same question as #721.

@bterlson
Copy link
Member

With another group of people confused by this, I'll remove the redundant check. I will entertain arguments for a note, though I don't really want to go through the entire spec adding notes about +/- infinity for every usage of min/max.

@bterlson bterlson merged commit 88a48ec into tc39:master Nov 23, 2016
@bterlson
Copy link
Member

@thefourtheye congrats on your first contribution to ECMA262!!

@thefourtheye
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @bterlson :-) To be clear, you don't want to change other places like this in the spec?

@thefourtheye thefourtheye deleted the improve-tolength branch November 23, 2016 16:50
@bterlson
Copy link
Member

@thefourtheye I did a scan for other similar patterns w/ min/max and didn't see anything glaring. Which other places are you referring to?

@thefourtheye
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bterlson Oh I didn't have anything else in mind. I just wanted to understand your sentence clearly.

@bterlson
Copy link
Member

@thefourtheye Oh, my previous comment was saying that I could address the motivation to have the explicit +Infinity case by adding a note, but I can't convince myself that this usage of max/min is special enough to deserve the note and I don't want to add the note for every usage. Without a justification for ToLength being special I am ok not putting a note in anywhere.

@thefourtheye
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh okay, got it :-) Thanks @bterlson

@zerkms
Copy link

zerkms commented Nov 23, 2016

It should have been mine PR 😭

@bterlson
Copy link
Member

@zerkms I'm so sorry :( But, good news, there are boat loads of editorial issues you could fix! Just read a few clauses and I'm sure you'll find something.

@zerkms
Copy link

zerkms commented Nov 23, 2016

@bterlson I'm just kidding :-) Not a real problem at all :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants