See #721 for last time...

This looks like the same question as #721.

With another group of people confused by this, I'll remove the redundant check. I will entertain arguments for a note, though I don't really want to go through the entire spec adding notes about +/- infinity for every usage of min/max.

@thefourtheye congrats on your first contribution to ECMA262!!

Thanks @bterlson :-) To be clear, you don't want to change other places like this in the spec?

@thefourtheye I did a scan for other similar patterns w/ min/max and didn't see anything glaring. Which other places are you referring to?

@bterlson Oh I didn't have anything else in mind. I just wanted to understand your sentence clearly.

@thefourtheye Oh, my previous comment was saying that I could address the motivation to have the explicit +Infinity case by adding a note, but I can't convince myself that this usage of max/min is special enough to deserve the note and I don't want to add the note for every usage. Without a justification for ToLength being special I am ok not putting a note in anywhere.

Oh okay, got it :-) Thanks @bterlson

It should have been mine PR 😭

@zerkms I'm so sorry :( But, good news, there are boat loads of editorial issues you could fix! Just read a few clauses and I'm sure you'll find something.

@bterlson I'm just kidding :-) Not a real problem at all :-)