> On 3 Sep 2022, at 09:36, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, there are unfortunately a lot of problems around those and NaN, with > multiple reports in the past (I recall [1] and [2] but there were others). NaNs are indeed incredibly complicated, but I think we are sort of in a good place here given it's testing for equality in floats. The commit message of c4c34008854654279ec30067d72fc5d174d2f42f carries an explanation: The float datatypes consider NaNs values to be equal and greater than all non-NaN values. This change considers NaNs equal only for equality operators. The placement operators, contains, overlaps, left/right of etc. continue to return false when NaNs are involved. From testing and reading I believe the fix in this thread is correct, but since NaNs are involved I will take another look at this with fresh eyes before going ahead. -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/