On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 07:33:57 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 04:41:56 UTC, Vladimir
Panteleev wrote:
double[] arr = [1, 2, 3, double.nan, 1, 2];
assert(arr.isSorted);
arr.sort();
This code will fail with an assert error, but not the one on
the second line. Rather, it will fail inside std.range, when
sort calls assumeSorted, which checks elements in an order
different than sort and isSorted.
Here's a case where the odd way NaN interacts with generic
code messes things up in an ugly way.
This is concerning. It's very easy to overlook this while
writing an application, and it can become a hidden
vulnerability.
We can't fix the operators... but, perhaps, we could define a
safe default comparison predicate (e.g. std.algorithm.less)
for use with sorting and related tasks? Aside from bitwise
comparison, is it even possible to efficiently compare
floating-point values in a way suitable for sorting?
You cannot sort NaNs. A comparison with NaN must always
evaluate to false.
One could change isSorted to check for false instead of true,
so it would accept NaN. That would probably break too much
code, though.
arr[n] < arr[n+1] => !(arr[n+1] < arr[n])
But that is exactly what it does.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/8372da44f66f20c67b69b4b8fb39233ce42d493c/std/algorithm.d#L10021
And that is the reason the second line "assert(arr.isSorted);"
passes, while it should fail as the array is clearly not sorted.
Instead modifying
!(arr[n+1] < arr[n]) => arr[n] <= arr[n+1]
would make the function work correctly (return false if the range
contains nans), but then the template parameter "less" should be
replaced by "lessOrEqual". An alternative would be to check for
nans explicitly.
