Quoth jand@activestate.com ("Jan Dubois"): > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Zefram wrote: > > > > Nicholas Clark wrote: > > >And so we go full circle, as you removed the code demonstrating that we > > >already have that bug, only worse: > > > > Yes. We should fix that bug, not do it intentionally. > > I don't see agreement on what the bug is anymore: > > a) Should -0 always be TRUE, even when it has never been stringified, or > b) Should -0 always be stringified as "0" and therefore always be FALSE? There is a third option: c) Add "-0" to the list of strings that are FALSE. (And, of course, arrange for "-0" to consistently numify as -0.0, if it doesn't already.) This would only be a sane thing to do if we intend to make -0.0 consistently useful. If the sign disappears (or reappears) under unpredicatble circumstances, there's no point preserving it in the stringification (that is, option (b)). BenThread Previous | Thread Next