Closed daveeel closed 8 years ago
Sorry for the late reply. I'm going to err on the side of caution and leave it as it is (for now at least). There's something that rubs me the wrong way about changing a value underneath the dev's feet. It would be awkward if a dev does this.duration( null )
only to find the property now contains 0
.
Hi @ManuelDeLeon , I'm just playing VM with the new validation function. Now I need to do the following to avoid showing
NaN
in a integer fieldWouldn't it be nicer to let the builtin 'integer.covert' fall back to
0
if it'sNaN
?