http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10448
--- Comment #7 from [email protected] 2013-06-22 14:59:55 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > Exactly. See documentation of fmax at > > > > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/fmax.3.html > > > > > > > > Specifically: > > > > If one argument is a NaN, the other argument is returned. > > > > > > > > If both arguments are NaN, a NaN is returned. > > > > > > Isn't it better for min(0, float.nan) to be NaN, just as max(0, > > > float.nan) ? > > > > Yeah, that sounds like the better behavior: *anything* and nan is always > > nan. > > that would indeed seem more logical, although: > > * it differs from standard practice > * it incurs additional cost, compared to : return a<b?a:b; because you'd have > to check for isNan "return a<b?a:b;" doesn't work: you'd have to check for nan regardless of which you return. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
