On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
<roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> > By the way, there is a single case of wrong comparison with NaN:
> > print(1<<63 <= 0/0) --> true
> > It is hardly dangerous, just curious (I'm not proposing to fix it).
>
> Thanks for the report. (Of course it must be fixed; it is a bug.)
(And it can be "dangerous": it is converting NaN to integer, which
can trap on some machines.)
Not to mention any code that depends on the semantics of comparisons with NaN will break.
--
Brigham Toskin