Re: [bug-gawk] Overflow to Infinity

[Andrew J. Schorr]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 05:32:45PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Which Gawk results are nonsensical?  Maybe I missed some, but I looked
> at most of them, and they do make sense, more than the C results,
> actually.
> 
> Anyway, if there are nonsensical results, we should try fixing them so
> that they do make sense.  But mimicking C is not necessarily the way
> to do it.

I could be mistaken, but I think that NaN was defined by IEEE 754, not C.  So
Are we mimicking C or are we attempting to comply more closely with
the IEEE standard that defined NaN in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754-1985

Do other languages handle NaN differently than C, or does IEEE really
define this behavior?

Regards,
Andy