On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> > What's the justification for that convention? It seems wrong to me. It's difficult to do better than to point to Kahan's writings. See http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ieee754status/IEEE754.PDF and particularly the discussion on page 8 that starts "Were there no way to get rid of NaNs ...". I don't think it covers hypot, but the same justification given for having nan**0 == 1 applies here. Interestingly, he says that at the time of writing, 1**nan == nan is the preferred alternative. But since then, the standards (well, at least C99 and IEEE 754-2008) have come out in favour of 1**nan == 1. Mark
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4