Philip Taylor wrote:
> Ron Blaschke wrote on 01/08/2006 08:17:
>>
>> I am wondering if this NaN != NaN property could be used for the isnan
>> and finite tests, like so:
[snip]
>> Is this not portable enough? Is it better to look at the bits directly?
[great stuff snipped]
> It seems like the o
Ron Blaschke wrote on 01/08/2006 08:17:
I am wondering if this NaN != NaN property could be used for the isnan
and finite tests, like so:
int
Parrot_math_isnan(double x)
{
return x != x;
}
int
Parrot_math_finite(double x)
{
return (!Parrot_math_isnan(x - x));
}
That is, if "x != x" it
Bill Coffman wrote:
> NegNan doesn't exist, except as a fluke of the representation (see link for
> how they are represented). A -NaN is the same as a NaN. They both fail
> all
> comparison tests, even NaN == NaN is false (unless your compiler optimizes
> the comparison out). Only difference is
NegNan doesn't exist, except as a fluke of the representation (see link for
how they are represented). A -NaN is the same as a NaN. They both fail all
comparison tests, even NaN == NaN is false (unless your compiler optimizes
the comparison out). Only difference is the way they are stringified,
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:45:29PM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> don't forget about negative-not-a-number, and the quiet (or signaling)
Ah yes. that oxymoron.
I've never yet seen the reasons for why it exists at all. Does anyone have
a URL?
Nicholas Clark
On 7/30/06, Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the recent push to implement all of Tcl's [expr] command, Tcl has
come to the point where it needs to understand Inf and NaN.
After a brief discussion on IRC, it seems like PMCs are the proper way
to handle this. Specifically
In the recent push to implement all of Tcl's [expr] command, Tcl has
come to the point where it needs to understand Inf and NaN.
After a brief discussion on IRC, it seems like PMCs are the proper way
to handle this. Specifically, three new PMC types: NaN, Inf, and
NegInf. So here's wha
