David wrote: > Damian Conway wrote: > > NaN is dead. > .... > > Except perhaps under a C<use IEEE> pragma of some kind, in which case it > > would be a proper IEEE Norweigian Blue NaN. > > which merely redifines the discussion to, how does the IEEENBNaN > behave under various circumstances.
According to the IEEE standard. > > Unary C<+> (and other numeric contexts) will produce C<undef> when > > attempting to convert non-numeric strings. > > I think of Not-a-number as a special flavor of undef. I was thinking that way too, but Larry convinced me it's better not to. Of course, that's not to say that the particular C<undef> that's returned on failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem was not-a-numeric in nature. Damian
