From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Bakul Shah In-Reply-To: <461015d88dcdc89a3697e2e1d01a926c@kw.quanstro.net> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:00:36 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <04891ed00c35de2583c1da9a017dd7e2@hamnavoe.com> <2FEB81A6-7D40-427D-BF9B-07D90872E307@bitblocks.com> <461015d88dcdc89a3697e2e1d01a926c@kw.quanstro.net> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] comparisons with NaN Topicbox-Message-UUID: 735071a8-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > On Wed Aug 21 13:43:54 EDT 2013, bakul@bitblocks.com wrote: >> On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:55 AM, erik quanstrom = wrote: >>=20 >>> On Wed Aug 21 12:09:26 EDT 2013, 9fans@hamnavoe.com wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Actually it was a test suite that revealed the NaN errors. >>>> I wouldn't think it's something anyone needs in normal >>>> day-to-day computation, but sometimes boxes must be ticked. >>>=20 >>> :-) it is hard to imagine how this is useful. >>=20 >> See comments by Stephen Canon in >> = http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1565164/what-is-the-rationale-for-all-c= omparisons-returning-false-for-ieee754-nan-values That this!