All these return the same result, so I don't think we need to specify the
second param. I think instead the extern file should be updated to make
the second param optional.
parseInt("0xFF00FF", 0)
parseInt("0xFF00FF", undefined)
parseInt("0xFF00FF")
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/15/16, 1:49 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 3/15/16, 1:35 PM, "Andy Dufilie" <andy.dufi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It's not a good idea to make built-in functions behave differently in JS
> >>versus AS.
> >>
> >>It's not a required param in AS, and this change makes the following
> >>evaluate to true in AS but false in the cross-compiled JS:
> >>Number("0xFF00FF") == parseInt("0xFF00FF")
> >
> >Ah, good point. I didn't think about that case. So what do you suggest
> >we do? We could map it to a new org.apache.flex.utils.Language.parseInt
> >that checks the string for a leading "0x" and calls JS parseInt with the
> >right radix. Or should we trust that all browsers we will actually use
> >will "do the right thing"?
>
> Actually, reading the MDN article again, maybe we should set the second
> param to 0 instead of 10?
>
> -Alex
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Ob
> jects/parseInt
>
>
