At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:08 +0200, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at>
wrote in
> On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:48 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > > > SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> > > > > > > ?column?
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > t
> > > > > > > (1 row)
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed --- one could make an argument for either 'false' or NULL
> > > > > result, but surely not 'true'.
> >
> > Thanks! However, Michael's suggestion is worth considering. What do
> > you think about makeing NaN-involved comparison return NULL? If you
> > agree to that, I'll make a further change to the patch.
>
> If you think of "NaN" literally as "not a number", then FALSE would
> make sense, since "not a number" implies "not a number between 0 and 1".
>
> But since NaN is the result of operations like 0/0 or infinity - infinity,
> NULL might be better.
>
> So I'd opt for NULL too.
Thanks. Do you think it's acceptable that returning false instead of
NULL as an alternative behavior?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
