-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/02/2010 02:07 PM, Scott McMurray wrote:
I think is_nan(Inf) should be false, but is_finite(Inf) should also be false.
Since it won't be representable by the finite_xint that you proposed, it would have to.
If I don't add an infinity value, I could. I'm leaning toward adding one (with sign), but it will act exactly like a NaN except for comparisons.
Actually, you *can* calculate with infinity. That's the reason for having it separate from NaN, and why it needs a sign. [...]
Hm, point taken. I was only planning to make it work for comparisons, since the only reason proposed for it was for boundary markers, but that works too.
But the indeterminate forms do, of course, give NaNs: [...]
I can agree with all of those except 0 * Inf and 0 * -Inf. If I remember correctly, zero times anything is zero, and that would apply to infinities too. Or am I missing something again?
Hopefully that'll make you lean further :P
:-) I'm not sure how useful the operations on infinities would be, but it looks like it would be easy enough to add them. - -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAku2OIIACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wTahACgwTmqzynd1JtQlFayU6cnWZ6U rU4AoN2S381U5lJtz9kXkKUxhFDoyGPn =MGNu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----