Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: is_nan

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-27 04:53:34

"Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:

| "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje news:m3llulj9yh.fsf_at_uniton.integrable-solutions.net...
| > "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >
| > | >|
| > | >| What don't you understand in the expression "isnan is a private function"?
| > | >
| > | >What being private has to do with being trapping or not?
| > | >
| > | Guillaume point is that this isnan(), being an implementation
| > | detail, is known to never recieve a sNAN, so it does not has to
| >
| > No, that is not exactly what is beind discussed.  He is assuming isnan
| > will not receive an sNaN.
| >
| He's not assumining it, he is stating it.

Not actually.  It is an assumption he is making.  With the corollary
that the users deserves non-sense if his assumption is not met.

-- Gaby