[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (0 <= i && i < N) is not "backwards"
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: (0 <= i && i < N) is not "backwards" |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:35:51 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 |
On 03/25/2013 01:20 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Out of fairness, you introduced this style into Emacs sources
I've certainly used it in the changes I made, and as a result it's
become more popular, but I did not introduce it. That style has
been used in Emacs, as a minority style, for many years.
> If we want our code to be robust in the face of NaNs, we should
> probably use 'isnan' explicitly
That will slow the code down and make it harder to read. Perhaps a
comment could be introduced; but must we really add a comment
"watch out for NaNs!" every time we have a floating point comparison?
> whether a NaN
> should be considered greater or less than zero in the Emacs context is
> debatable
The documentation for one of the affected variables says
"If the value is not a number, ...", so the behavior formerly matched
the documentation and now no longer does so.
This was not the only bug introduced by the change, I'm afraid.
Re: (0 <= i && i < N) is not "backwards", Jim Meyering, 2013/03/30