Re: simple question about NaN and FP exceptions

[Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>]

> OK, but why this implies NaN should evaluate to false? Apparently, Lua
> authors regret that nil evaluates to false [1]: "Not introducing booleans
> from the start had a few unfortunate side-effects. One is that we now have
> two false values: nil and false.". Lately, I've become a little more
> inclined to agree with them in this particular aspect because I seems to me
> it brings more confusion than actual benefits.

Interesting in the background of my recent
lets-get-rid-of-nil-propsoal I was virtually yelled at for the
sidemark to additionally remove implicit booleans. (Yes this very
contradicts the NaN as implicit false, but I go with the flow :-)