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: bignum branch Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 05:36:31 +0300 Message-ID: <83r2k02bps.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87o9fbbw1t.fsf@tromey.com> <53ba128d-7888-e15a-c4a2-1d7a65f51345@cs.ucla.edu> <83wotu7fcj.fsf@gnu.org> <83k1pt7q1e.fsf@gnu.org> <83h8kx7oeu.fsf@gnu.org> <83fu0h7nr6.fsf@gnu.org> <83d0vl7kg2.fsf@gnu.org> <4bc2a6ba-bc73-c4a9-f7a6-20303955bc7f@cs.ucla.edu> <838t696zb2.fsf@gnu.org> <5095f6d2-c8c1-8d9b-4f4f-ccb74a68d58e@cs.ucla.edu> <8547e501-a41f-68eb-6e00-5fed6c593da4@gmail.com> <73e5dd79-d7d5-3bec-f991-04ceb5d3472d@gmail.com> <87o9f45ot8.fsf@Rainer.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1531967712 18805 195.159.176.226 (19 Jul 2018 02:35:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 02:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 19 04:35:08 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 1ffymY-0004n9-QD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 04:35:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39262 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ffyof-0003rc-EY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:37:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39343) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ffyo1-0003rK-Ec for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:36:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ffyny-0001Oi-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:36:37 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44132) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ffyny-0001Oc-23; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:36:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1116 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ffynx-0003ES-Gh; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:36:33 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:41:14 -0400) 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:227558 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:41:14 -0400 > > > NaN (specifically of the IEEE754 variety) is supposed to compare > > non-equal even when compared to itself. > > There's "compare" and there's "compare". > I think we always want (eql x x) to return t, so the above behavior > makes a lot of sense. The rule that NaN is not equal to itself should > only be applied when doing a numerical comparison (i.e. (= x x) may > return nil). 100% agreement. We are testing equality of two objects, not their numerical equality.