From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master d0c77a1: Remove some assumptions about timestamp format Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:32:45 +0300 Message-ID: <83h8ia6sj6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180925021527.10418.61555@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20180925021528.9A119204E8@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87bm8lanwu.fsf@gmx.de> <87o9ck6270.fsf@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1538116274 16117 195.159.176.226 (28 Sep 2018 06:31:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 06:31:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 28 08:31:10 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g5mIw-00046s-Gt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:31:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41608 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5mL2-0003IG-Eu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:33:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34418) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5mKn-00039a-E6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:33:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5mKk-0005a9-7w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:33:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34856) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5mKk-0005a2-3u; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3478 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1g5mKj-0008BO-NX; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:33:02 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Paul Eggert on Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:46:51 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:230101 Archived-At: > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:46:51 -0700 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I'm afraid we need something better than that, as it mishandles NaNs. > Also, there's no need for a special "invalid_time" value; you can just > use a NaN. It's OK to support NaNs in time values, but I'm uneasy with the recommendation to use NaN as an invalid time. IMO, NaNs should only come out of calculations, never from initial literal values of a program (except when the program wants to test NaN handling). What is the problem with having a special invalid time value?