On Saturday, December 10, 2011 20:37:13 Don Clugston wrote: > 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?
That doesn't compile. Maybe it did before (I don't know), but when I just tried it, it failed. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
