Guido van Rossum wrote: > Currently NaN is not violating > any language rules -- it is just violating users' intuition, in a much > worse way than Inf does. If it's to be an official language non-rule (by which I mean that types are officially allowed to compare non-reflexively) then any code assuming that identity implies equality for arbitrary objects is broken and should be fixed. -- Greg
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