On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus Cea wrote: > > But IEEE 754 was created by pretty clever guys and sure they had a > > reason for define things in the way they are. Probably we are missing > > something. > > Yes, this is where their "implementable in a hardware circuit" focus > comes in. They were primarily thinking of a floating point > representation where the 32/64 bits are *it* - you can't have "multiple > NaNs" because you don't have the bits available to describe them. > Wait, what? I haven't been paying much attention, but this is backwards. There are multiple representations of NaN in the IEEE encoding; that's actually part of the problem with saying that NaN = NaN or NaN != NaN. If you want to ignore the "payload" in the NaN, then you're not just comparing bits any more. -- Curt Hagenlocher c...@hagenlocher.org
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
