Re: [boost] is_nan

From: Paul Giaccone (paulg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 07:58:37

Johan Råde wrote:
> So it would make sense to have the functions
>
>    is_finite()
>    is_normal()
>    is_subnormal()
>
>    is_infinity()
>    is_plus_infinity()
>    is_minus_infinity()
>   
Is "is_infinity" the opposite of "is_finite" or the same as 
"is_plus_infinity"? The former, I would presume, but the name suggests 
the latter. This is the ambiguity I mentioned before. The function would 
be better named "is_infinite", IMO.