Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Christoph M. Becker" Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: null and NaN Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:28:06 +0200 Organization: solani.org Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <1887823.QYRqh1XSJF@PointedEars.de> <6583706.BrqscuLzCi@PointedEars.de> <6931424.mSP66HsXnD@PointedEars.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: solani.org 1434029280 24690 eJwNyckBwCAIBMCW5Fhgy4lE+i9B5zuwkOj0QDgGo33aTSv1hwh3k9VnrSHV3uZj3KwESj65DsUQMA== (11 Jun 2015 13:28:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 X-User-ID: eJwNyckBwCAIBMCWMLoLlBOu/kvQ1zwGm4uph+DBYGgOf0bnXyk9e1kNvnKVqAzT99LBYNO1LjRbEeg= In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:tvWpo1Is9X9czH0tK74xlHgFpr8= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwNxcEBgDAIA8CVohCi47TQ7D+C3ucYdVUri5U0fedMBDxxJO25XxymZ5Dl/wV0C0vOzaf1ASUKEY4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:28084 Joao Rodrigues wrote: > Thomas Lahn wrote: > >> Much better. Still _not_ an admission that it is an implementation bug >> caused by the original JavaScript code as Dr. Rauschmeyer and you claimed, >> and not a clear admission that it is a bug at all (“reason to believe”, >> not “is”). But at least properly quoted and cited, and substantiated. > > It is still _not_ an admission that *you are wrong* and acting like a > fool trying to deceive everyone that typeof null === 'object' is not a > bug. Remember Brendan Eich, Douglas Crockford and others have said it is > more than once. Now shall we believe in Thomas Lahn or Brendan Eich? Argument from authority. > If you had read carefully what Dr Rauschmeyer wrote [1], you'd realize > the bug in the C++ code that he posted. Besides, there is another > article that shows the same problem in the C++ code of Google's V8 > implementation [2]. I haven't read the second article, but Dr. Rauschmeyer claims there is a bug without actual evidence. The respective code could have been written this way deliberately. Consider that typeof null was *supposed* to be `object` – why should have an additional check for JSVAL_NULL be added? A comment would have clarified the issue, but there is none, so we only can guess. > [1] > [2] -- Christoph M. Becker