|
From: | Paul Eggert |
Subject: | Re: master d0c77a1: Remove some assumptions about timestamp format |
Date: | Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:39:38 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 |
Michael Albinus wrote:
Shouldn't this be `time-equal-p', as we have already `time-less-p'?
Thanks, as a Scheme refugee I never can remember which predicates should end in "-p" vs "p" vs nothing. I installed the attached.
Tramp (and other functions) must check, whether a given time value is the "don't know" value. Therefore, (time-equal time-value 0.0e+NaN) must return t, if time-value is a NaN. And what if either value is a float infinity?
It appears that NaN isn't what Tramp wants. As a time value, NaN should work like floating-point NaN does; it should never compare numerically equal to anything, not even to itself (anything else would lead to even more confusion than what we already have :-). I hope that my other suggestion for Tramp suffices, so that we don't need to worry about what happens with NaNs in comparisons.
0001-Rename-time-equal-to-time-equal-p.patch
Description: Text Data
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |