Hi Björn,
Björn Larsson wrote:
Den 2016-03-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Andrea Faulds:
Came to think on a conversation with Sara G last year about introducing
the following operators, namely >==, <== & <==> working exactly like the
existing ones but without type juggling.
Maybe that would alleviate some
Le jeu. 24 mars 2016 à 21:29, Andrea Faulds a écrit :
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> > Hi Andrea,
> >
> > Nice work.
> >
> > I'm globally +0.7 on it, there is however a few things that are unclear
> to
> > me:
> >
> > * What happens with an empty string? Warning, notice or even nothin
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Björn Larsson
wrote:
> Came to think on a conversation with Sara G last year about introducing
> the following operators, namely >==, <== & <==> working exactly like the
> existing ones but without type juggling.
>==, <== were not introduced because results a
Den 2016-03-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Andrea Faulds:
Hi Patrick,
Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Nice work.
I'm globally +0.7 on it, there is however a few things that are
unclear to
me:
* What happens with an empty string? Warning, notice or even nothing?
* Would:
42 + "";
produce the same t
Hi Patrick,
Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Nice work.
I'm globally +0.7 on it, there is however a few things that are unclear to
me:
* What happens with an empty string? Warning, notice or even nothing?
* Would:
42 + "";
produce the same thing than:
42 + null;
currently, both are quiet, b
Le dim. 20 mars 2016 à 03:36, Andrea Faulds a écrit :
> Hi everyone,
>
> I previously opened voting on the "Warn about invalid strings in
> arithmetic" RFC, but I had to cancel it because of the issue of
> inconsistent handling of scientific notation strings.
>
> Since then, the RFC has been upda
