[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: simple question about NaN and FP exceptions
- From: Steve Litt <slitt@...>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:54:44 -0500
On Monday 21 February 2011 10:38:01 Axel Kittenberger wrote:
> > But the Lua way is to show the test for NaN explicitly your code.
> > http://snippets.luacode.org/snippets/Test_for_NaN_75
>
> Would it be too much compatibility breaking or performance impacting
> to have NaN evaluate itself to boolean false instead of true by
> default?
>
> This would a) make NaN checking much easier, arithmetic operations
> dont return 'nil' or 'false' anyway. b) NaN could be a wonderful
> dropin for people wanting to say 'isset but nil' in a
> first-class-value-way for tables/lists.
>
> Kind regards, Axel
Wouldn't that break existing code that assumes only false and nil are false?
SteveT
Steve Litt
Recession Relief Package
http://www.recession-relief.US
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt
