> On 3 Sep 2022, at 09:36, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, there are unfortunately a lot of problems around those and NaN, with
> multiple reports in the past (I recall [1] and [2] but there were others).
NaNs are indeed incredibly complicated, but I think we are sort of in a good
place here given it's testing for equality in floats. The commit message of
c4c34008854654279ec30067d72fc5d174d2f42f carries an explanation:
The float datatypes consider NaNs values to be equal and greater than
all non-NaN values. This change considers NaNs equal only for equality
operators. The placement operators, contains, overlaps, left/right of
etc. continue to return false when NaNs are involved.
From testing and reading I believe the fix in this thread is correct, but since
NaNs are involved I will take another look at this with fresh eyes before going
ahead.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/