Comment 2 for bug 1618518
Revision history for this message
| Andrzej Walczak (andrzejwalczak) wrote | #2 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
f33e652
(Get the code!)
I agree, there is the standard and there is the surprise.
As in: changed program semantics by adding a declaration which the compiler is allowed to ignore.
Since the identity elements for infimum/supremum are +inf/-inf generally,
we have a hole in the standard - mainly because the +inf/-inf values are not well defined in it.
The next best value to settle on would be 0.