On 10 December 2011 09:11, Walter Bright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/10/2011 12:01 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> >> Part of me thinks that NaN should be equal to NaN, but it's likely too >> late >> for that at this point, even if it were determined to be a good idea. >> > > That issue was decided at least 25 years ago.
The IEEE decision that x != x when x is NaN was probably the wrong decision, but it's too late now. I think it has the effect that X.init is dangerous. It's one of those terrible things that nearly always works, but is broken beyond repair in the last 0.1% of cases. Honestly, I don't get the point of X.init where by default X is uninitialized. If it's an error to access variable x, why isn't it an error to access x.init? double x = x.init; // is x initialized now? _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
