RussellSpitzer commented on pull request #2891: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/2891#issuecomment-985025917
I'm not sure I see the problem with just saying all "NaN" values come last. Doesn't -NaN not actually exist as a defined constant? From what I know of the standard the sign bit doesn't change the state of the NaN so we should treat them all the same. Since Java already does this seems like we would be fine just saying all NAN are > positive infinity. No need to qualify it imho. So I'm +1 on just removing it from the spec. No need to add a detail about NaN ordering after that I think. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
