Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:19:24 -0700, Curt Hagenlocher a écrit : > 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.
This sounds a bit sophistic, if the (Python) user doesn't have access to the payload anyway. Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
