Re: [9fans] NaN, +Inf, and -Inf, constants?

[Charles Forsyth]

>seems like a bug to me.  the spec is pretty clear:

it's quite deliberate, having looked at the code.
i suspect the rationale was that, finally, C provided a way
outside the preprocessor to give symbolic names to constants.
why restrict that to int?
you can't easily get the same effect by adding #define names
to the output symbol table, because those are arbitrary text,
not guaranteed either to be constants, or to be safe for substitution
(without surrounding ())