Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
with an appropriate definition of the + operator without risk that an error
would try to evaluate it as an ordinary arithmetic expression?
We don't have constant to identify a qNaN.
From math:
NaN = 0.0/0.0;
Infinity = 1.0/0.0;
NegInfinity = -1.0/0.0;
but of course that is just notation/convention (that 0.0/0.0 as literal
evaluates to NaN), it doesn't mean all archs do.
Thanks for that. Initial experiment using a NaN real or nil pointer
throws an exception as soon as it's passed as the parameter which I
suppose is not entirely surprising. Using varnull as a placeholder seems
safest, although it looks as though I can't initialise a variant at
declaration... WTH, it's just a toy for the moment at least.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
