_isNumerical implementation doesn't make sense

[billinghamj]

I was just reviewing this code, and noticed that the following doesn't seem to make sense:

humps/humps.js

Lines 94 to 98 in d612998

	// Performant way to determine if obj coerces to a number
	var _isNumerical = function(obj) {
	obj = obj - 0;
	return obj === obj;
	};

As, obviously, this code could never return false. You could replace the entire implementation with return true and it would behave the same way.

Perhaps this would be more in-line with the original intent?

var _isNumerical = function(obj) { 
  var num = obj - 0; 
  return num === obj; 
}; 

That would check if the input was precisely that number (including the type), but the comment states that it checks whether the value coerces to a number, so perhaps it should also really be double equals, rather than triple? Or perhaps the comment should be corrected?

[seansfkelley]

As, obviously, this code could never return false. You could replace the entire implementation with return true and it would behave the same way.

Not quite:

> NaN === NaN
false

Which I think is the intent, in which case it would perhaps be clearer for this function to be implemented as return !isNaN(obj - 0); or perhaps return !isNaN(+obj);.

[billinghamj]

Ah yes I guess that could be it. Definitely should be using the explicit function for that - perhaps the Number.isNaN one though.

[billinghamj]

Yep, there we go: #13 (diff)

Looks like that review comment was not addressed.

[billinghamj]

Closing due to inactivity