Jesus Cea wrote: > But IEEE 754 was created by pretty clever guys and sure they had a > reason for define things in the way they are. Probably we are missing > something. Yes, this is where their "implementable in a hardware circuit" focus comes in. They were primarily thinking of a floating point representation where the 32/64 bits are *it* - you can't have "multiple NaNs" because you don't have the bits available to describe them. We don't have that limitation - by bring id() into play for NaN equality tests we have a lot more bits to play with (effectively adding an extra 32 or 64 bits to the floating point value just to say "which NaN is this one?"). Doubling the size of your storage just to have multiple kinds of NaN would be insane, but in our case the extra storage is already in use - we would just be applying an additional interpretation to it. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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