not-a-number's

[Robert Dewar]

On 1/16/2013 6:54 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
]
> And indeed apparently the answer then is '2'. However, I don't think
> this is correct. If that means that there is an error in the C
> specification, then there probably is an error in the specification.

The C specification seems perfectly reasonable to me (in fact it is
rather familiar that x != x is a standard test for something being
a NaN. The fact that you for unclear reasons don't like the C spec
does not mean it is wrong!