> His point was that the NaN IEEE came up with is defined to have NaN != > NaN, and that it might be confusing if Perl's behavior wasn't consistent > with that. Not that I think NaN != NaN is a particularly good idea, but > consistency with other languages may be. If NaN != NaN, then his > example is correct.
Sorry. I was focused on the Perl 6 semantics and missed that implication. Let me make it clear: AFAIK Perl NaN's will not be IEEE 754 compliant. That was certainly my intention in suggesting them to Larry. I share the view of a number of other language designers that the non-self-identity of IEEE NaN is (to slightly misquote Tim) "ugly, non-intuitive and ugly; and non-intuitive too". ;-) > P.S. Congratulations to you and Larry for waking up perl6-language. I > had seen almost no traffic on it in weeks, and was starting to get a bit > worried that thoughts on the languages were coughing, sputtering and > dying. :^) Just one of many eyes in Hurricane Perl, I assure you! ;-) Damian
