> On 31 Oct 2017, at 16:46, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>> In that case we need to double (sorry) down on the NaNs and include sum as
>> well:
>>
>> * <li>{@code (min <= max && !isNaN(sum)) || (isNaN(min) && isNaN(max) &&
>> isNaN(sum))}
>
> A more complete test for the numerical consistency conditions would be
> something like
>
> min <= sum/count <= max
>
> However, that would require a bit of thought due to potential round-off so
> this might not be worth the complexity trade-off. (If any of min, sum, and
> max were NaN, the comparisons would be false.)
>
Yes, my recollection from the discussions we concluded not to do such checks.
Paul.
